Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Oman) Order 1998, the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport) (Hong Kong) Order 1998 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kazakhstan) Order 1998 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 22 October.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read

To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Fur Farming

Mr. Robin Corbett: What has been the response to the public consultation on the future of fur farming. [51685]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The response to the public consultation exercise carried out last year on the future of fur farming showed that there was overwhelming support for the Government's position to ban fur farming. I want to announce that it is the Government's firm intention to end fur farming in

this country. Primary legislation will be required, and we will be seeking the most appropriate route by which to achieve that.

Mr. Corbett: I congratulate my hon. Friend, and through him the Government, on making for the first time a pledge that a Bill is to be introduced to ban fur farming. Does he agree that fur looks better on the backs of animals that are born with it than on the backs of bimbos?

Mr. Morley: The public certainly find fur farming unacceptable. We know from the many representations that we have received from welfare and other organisations and consumer groups, as well as from our own specialist advisory bodies, such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council, that there has been long-standing concern about the practice of fur farming. I want to make absolutely clear our commitment to bringing it to an end through legislation.

Mr. Norman Baker: I congratulate the Minister on his announcement; I know that he takes the matter very seriously. I am sure that many hon. Members were pleased to hear it. Can he give an undertaking that legislation will be in the Queen's Speech? Will he give a definite undertaking that fur farming will have been stopped by the end of this Parliament?

Mr. Morley: The procedure will be announced in due course, although there are several ways in which such legislation can be brought forward. It is right and proper that the details of legislation, including such aspects as the phase-out period, will be announced for consultation among interested parties.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that that news will be especially welcomed by the very many young people who write to us, and who find it inconceivable that a modern Government cannot end such an immoral and barbaric practice as soon as possible?

Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. From the many representations that we have received, it is clear that many young people find it very strange that, in our society and in this day and age, animals are kept in such conditions for no other reason than to produce fur.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Andrew George: What representations he has received on proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy. [51686]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Ministry receives many suggestions—I cannot truthfully say that I have seen them all yet—for improving the common fisheries policy, including some from the hon. Gentleman, who has been assiduous in his efforts on behalf of fishermen from St. Ives, Newlyn and Hayle.

Mr. George: May I first warmly welcome the Minister to his new post? Now that he has taken on the brief, is he aware how anxious fishermen in the United Kingdom are for reform of the common fisheries policy, especially in terms of the need to ensure equality in monitoring and


enforcement throughout the European Union? Is he prepared to make a statement this afternoon about the previous proposals to ensure that licensing arrangements for all fishing vessels, including quota hoppers—the new arrangements to establish a clear economic link—are introduced soon?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the concerns in the fishing community about enforcement. My predecessor in this job, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), made it the centrepiece of the British presidency and took tough action. I have inherited the fruits of that, and will continue to do as he did.
On quota hopping, I understand the need to ensure that all British-registered fishing vessels that use United Kingdom quotas also bring benefits to our fishing communities. Last year, the Prime Minister secured a clear statement from the President of the Commission about the steps that we could take, and my predecessor put to the Commission proposals based on careful discussions with all concerned. I am pleased to say that we have now secured the agreement of the Commission to our proposals.
I shall make a detailed announcement later today, but I am certain that the House will want to know now that our measures will require all United Kingdom vessels to demonstrate, by one method or another, that they have real economic links. Choices will be available, including landing, crewing and other economically significant activities. I believe that those measures will make a real difference to the benefits that we receive from United Kingdom quotas—and will achieve that with the minimum burden for vessels that already have economic links.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his accession to the most important job in British government today. May I also express the hope that he adopts the same firm but conciliatory policy towards the fish and the fishing industry as he adopted towards the parliamentary Labour party? I also hope that he will accord a big role to the proposals made by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation about coastal state management, so that power is transferred down from Brussels to coastal states to manage their own waters and control their own conservation, with better effect than a centralised policy.

Mr. Brown: Those proposals are under consideration by the Ministry now, and I hope to meet in the relatively near future representatives of those most interested. I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for me to my new responsibilities; as he will know, I had quite a bit to do with him in connection with my previous responsibilities.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new position in the Government, may I pursue some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)? Much serious consideration has been given to the issue of coastal management, and I would like to know when the Government will decide how they will argue that case in the renegotiation of the fisheries policy.

Mr. Brown: Those are important matters, and there will be several consultation meetings. As the hon. Lady

knows, probably in more detail than I do at the moment, some of the issues will be devolved and will eventually fall under the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. I intend to discuss the Scottish aspects of fisheries matters closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I hope to be able to give the hon. Lady a fuller reply soon.

Mr. Frank Doran: May I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new job? For the record, I should say that we have had very little contact over the past year. He is taking over an extremely important brief, and I look forward to welcoming him to Aberdeen to meet the fishermen and fish processors. He has made an important announcement this afternoon; we look forward to hearing the details later. Will he say more about his intentions? In particular, will the scheme have the flexibility to allow fishermen choices about how they operate?

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to my new duties. I look forward to visiting Scotland to discuss these matters with his constituents and their representatives. He is right to say that I did not have much to do with him in my previous capacity; I look forward to having much more to do with him in my new one.
My hon. Friend rightly asks whether there will be a range of choices for compliance. The answer is yes. There are proposals, for example, that 50 per cent. of the catch of quota species should be landed in the United Kingdom; that 50 per cent. of the crew must be resident in United Kingdom coastal areas; and that a certain level of operating expenditure must be incurred in United Kingdom coastal areas. Other measures will be spelled out in more detail at 4 pm.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his post, may I commiserate with him on having to exchange one bed of nails for another? He will soon find that the common fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster for our country, ecologically and economically—communities round our coasts have been economically devastated by it. Will he, in the recess, take the ferry from Newcastle to Norway to sound out fisheries communities? If he does, he will find that Norway's national fisheries management has been an unbounded success—it provides an example that we should follow.

Mr. Brown: I intend to take a close interest in all these matters, not only because my responsibilities require it, but because I want to do so anyway. I think that the hon. Gentleman's approach is wrong. We must negotiate with the other interested parties rather than assert that they are all wrong and that somehow, we have a solution for the United Kingdom that we can adopt without reference to our friends and neighbours. The hon. Gentleman says that I have moved from one bed of nails to another, but my previous job was no bed of nails.

Mrs. Joan Humble: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position and thank him for his announcement about quota hoppers. He may be aware that the Fleetwood Fish Producers Organisation recently invited 38 Anglo-Spanish vessels to join it, and that the grant that Wyre district council is


offering to the local fishing industry is tied in with various conditions on local economic links. Will he advise local fish producers associations, port managers and local authorities on the details of his proposals on quota hoppers, which I am sure will be greeted with much interest in my local community?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that they will and, yes, everyone with an interest will be advised on exactly what the Government propose. As I said to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), the Government take enforcement seriously; it is right that everyone should know precisely what will be enforced, as, I assure the House, enforced it will be.

Mr. James Wallace: I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman; if he can make such an announcement after two days in office, we wait with bated breath to see what he can do in the first two months. I echo what has been said about coastal state management. Will he assure us that regional management of fisheries will be developed and that fishermen will be involved in setting total allowable catches, as they have expertise as well as a stake in the outcome? Concepts such as the north of Scotland or Shetland box should also be developed in any renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Brown: I am very keen to make sure that we make progress in renegotiating the common fisheries policy. I am also keen to ensure that we examine how much room for manoeuvre we have within the regime in terms of making adjustments in decision making, and perhaps even devolving some decision making. Nevertheless, the parameters are fixed, and I shall not take the approach urged on me by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The approach of the hon. and learned Member is far more constructive.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the beach-based, under-10 m fleet at Hastings has this year recorded its lowest catch in history, wholly as a result of quota hopping? I refer to quota hopping not from other countries, but from former over-10 m fleets which have shortened their vessels and moved in to take the historic catch of my constituents. Will he take some form of enforcement to ensure that that does not continue to occur?

Mr. Brown: I promise my hon. Friend that I will consider his representations. I am sorry to hear what he has to say about Hastings, not least because I grew up in Hawkhurst, which is only 15 miles away. I regard Hastings as part of my home.

Bananas

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What assessment he has made of the potential benefit to the economies of developing nations through the promotion and recognition of fair trade principles in the export of bananas. [51688]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Fair trade bananas may have a part to play in strengthening the

economies of developing countries. As part of the successful negotiations on the EU's banana regime which the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), recently chaired in Luxembourg, the Commission has agreed to bring forward a communication and a proposal on fair trade bananas by 1 March next year.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend. What progress is being made in fulfilling our Lomé convention commitments? Does he agree that the purchase of fair trade bananas in our supermarkets and food shops ought to be encouraged, for the good of both our children and developing countries?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend will be aware that the banana is the highest-selling fruit in this country, averaging two per person per week—a substantial number. As regards the question of third-world countries, the deal that was successfully concluded at Luxembourg fully meets this country's commitments under the Lomé convention and, we believe, our World Trade Organisation obligations—not every other country on the planet takes that view.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Minister confirm that the agreement on fair trade bananas—which is welcome—is not WTO-compatible in two respects? First, the quota is not agreed within the WTO, and is therefore subject to challenge; it is likely to be challenged by the United States and countries from central America. Secondly, the agreement under which bananas can be imported into Europe under WTO waiver ends in 2002, and this agreement is designed to run to 2004. Therefore, an extension of the WTO waiver will be necessary.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is right on the latter point. On his former point, we are disappointed that the United States continues to take a confrontational stand on the issue. We sincerely hope that, following mature consideration and a look at what was agreed, the United States will see that we have found what we consider to be a reasonable way in which to honour our international obligations.

Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that the description of the future of the banana industry as being between straight and curved bananas is a gross caricature? There are two large problems here: one is the British consumer preference for the smaller, Caribbean banana, and the second is the desire of former colonial territories—particularly in Africa and the Caribbean—for trade rather than aid. However, countries such as the Windward Islands in particular cannot compete with the same economies of scale against the large multinationals operating in central America, such as Dole and Chiquita. They look to the British Government and the EU to provide fair trade.

Mr. Rooker: As former colonial powers, we and some of our European partners have a moral obligation to ensure that the economies of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are not wrecked by other forces. The United States is not a banana grower, but it has close


relations with Latin American countries that are. Companies such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned gave some countries the name of banana republic. I will not go into the reasons for that. We would prefer trade and not aid, and so would those countries. It would be wholly unacceptable for Caribbean countries' economies to be wrecked—which is a possibility—and for them to be forced to grow cash crops.

British Beef

Mr. James Gray: What measures he is taking to promote the sale of British beef. [51689]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government have continued to support various initiatives to help to promote the sale of beef. As a result, there has been a significant increase in beef consumption and, in the first four months of this year, a substantial increase in the United Kingdom share of the domestic market.

Mr. Gray: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. I hope that he will forgive me for adding a slightly discordant note when I say that I hope that he will show more interest in and concern for the beef industry and beef producers than his predecessor did, and that he will find the way from the Smoking Room to the Chamber for important debates.
The beef industry is deeply disappointed by the lack of progress towards lifting the ban, despite the Government's constant boasts about their Euro credentials. Assuming that the ban is eventually lifted, will the right hon. Gentleman give mainland farmers the same help, on a pro rata basis, that he recently gave Northern Ireland farmers? He gave them £2 million to help with their marketing abroad; pro rata, that would work out at about £11 million for the mainland. Will he undertake to give the same help to mainland farmers?

Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my job, but I cannot accept what he said about my predecessor. Only as a result of my predecessor's efforts was I able to make an important announcement yesterday about a further step that we are taking to ensure that we can get British beef sales back in the European Union. I did not make the decision—it would be nice to claim the credit after 48 hours in the Ministry—and the momentum was entirely due to my predecessor's hard work and consistent negotiating skills. I pay tribute to him.
The £2 million spent in Northern Ireland was a one-off payment related to the peace process and not support for the industry in the United Kingdom.

Charlotte Atkins: How much has been paid to fanners under the present Government, and how much agrimonetary compensation did the previous Government pay?

Mr. Brown: The answer to the latter part of the question is none. The figure for total payments is huge, and the vast majority of it is driven by the Government's endeavours to eliminate BSE.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that the promotion of the

sale of beef is primarily a question of confidence; that great strides have been made domestically in the re-establishment—and indeed, in some cases, the extension—of consumer confidence; and that it is vital for that to be extended beyond these shores? I welcome him to his post, in which he has inherited a problem about which it may not be too late to do something. The producer confidence of British farming would be greatly assisted if he reconsidered the statement of aims agreed by his predecessor, which rightly mentions the environment and conservation, but does not mention the word "farming". It is coupled with a set of figures that represent a phasing out of support for some of the most fragile parts of the beef-producing sector of the UK economy, which would be of no great help towards the lifting of the ban in the longer term.

Mr. Brown: I regard the lifting of the beef ban as a top priority for me and for the Ministry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take it very seriously. His point about confidence was also right; I accept that I have a duty to set a lead. Yesterday, I went to Asda to look at its display of British beef—[Interruption.] I am trying to make this answer an all-party effort by including both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who is the Conservative Member most connected with Asda, although he is not here. [HON. MEMBERS: "He's writing out redundancies."] I know. He is writing them out at Conservative central office. I will do what I can to set a lead, and to support the British beef industry.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who sit on the bank of seats below the Gangway have just had a quick check, and even we have decided that, after only 48 hours, we cannot blame the new Minister for what has happened with BSE? He may have sent us some nasty letters from time to time, but we cannot blame him for BSE. Does he agree that the real blame for the billions of pounds that the British taxpayer has had to spend on BSE arises entirely from the Conservatives' total and utter neglect when they were in government? That money could have been spent on the national health service and schools, which would have made farmers themselves better off.

Mr. Brown: In view of our relationship when I was in my previous job, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not blaming me. Of course the money could have been better spent. No one wanted to get into the position we are in, and, although some good may come of it for the future, the cost of getting out of it has been enormous. I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend for not asking me to divert the subsidy into the mining industry, but I suppose that that will come.

Mr. James Paice: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new duties? If he is in any doubt about the need to rekindle confidence in his Government among farmers, he need only step outside London to meet them. They lost all confidence during the term of office of his predecessor.
The beef market is affected not only by BSE, but, possibly seriously, by tuberculosis. Herd outbreaks have increased by 30 per cent. over the past year, which is causing concern about our notional status of being free of


TB. The right hon. Gentleman has just received the report of the expert group. Will he ensure that there is no further delay in implementing the Krebs recommendations? Will he consider levels of compensation for fanners who currently see no help coming for the five years of the study?
Will he ask the expert group to consider movement restrictions on farms that break down to see whether all of them are needed? Krebs did not consider that, but I ask the Minister to request that the group does so. As the right hon. Gentleman has decided to end the calf processing scheme, farmers producing calves will need to rear them if they have a breakdown, because they will not otherwise be able to dispose of them.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me. Some political issues divide the parties, but where there is a clear national interest, and where it is possible for us to co-operate, I hope that we can do so. Many issues involve not purely domestic arguments, but how the outside world perceives our country. We have a responsibility to do the best we can for the nation.
The Krebs report is before me, and I also have all the Ministry's advice. I am holding a meeting this afternoon on the matter, and I hope to have something positive to say before the House rises for the recess. Bovine TB is important, but I am not able to make a statement now. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the industry's attitude, and I can tell him that I will be meeting the president of the National Farmers Union and his colleagues later today to discuss a range of matters, of which I am sure that that will be one.

Mr. John Smith: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new post, in which he will do an excellent job for the farmers of my constituency? Promotion and sale of beef is primarily carried out through our major supermarkets. May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to this morning's reports that the Office of Fair Trading is to look at the purchasing power of the supermarkets to see whether the price of beef is kept artificially high in the shops?
That, in turn, is not helping our farmers at all. Next month we have the agricultural show in the Vale of Glamorgan at Fonmon castle. Does the Minister plan to meet John Bridgeman to discuss this important issue?

Mr. Brown: I have already had discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales, and he has invited me to visit the agricultural communities in Wales, which I intend to do on an early occasion. I accept what my hon. Friend says about the power of the big retailers and I shall also be meeting representatives of retailing organisations, probably in the autumn. The Government have always taken the view, however, that competition policy is a matter for the regulatory authorities.

BSE Compensation Payments

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: If he will make a statement on the future of BSE compensation payments. [51691]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have no plans to change the formula for calculation of the compensation payments to owners of BSE suspect animals. But as the number of animals with BSE continues to fall, and fall dramatically, the total amount of compensation paid to farmers will decline accordingly.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Yesterday the Government announced that the calf processing aid scheme would end on 30 November. What grounds does the Minister have for assuming that hard-pressed dairy and beef farmers will be able to cope with the sudden termination of this benefit?

Mr. Rooker: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the scheme is of benefit. The end date has been known since the scheme started and was agreed in 1996. There is nothing new about the end date of 30 November this year; it was agreed in the European Union and by the previous Government. There has never been any doubt about the change. We cannot enter into a voluntary arrangement. We shall monitor carefully the consequences of finishing the scheme, not least for possible difficulties regarding animal welfare.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that British beef is seen to be safe? Is it not true that the return of beefburger companies to British beef is proof that the Government's policies are working, and that more progress has been made in the past 15 months than was made in 18 years of Tory government?

Mr. Rooker: At the risk of being partisan about this, I remind my hon. Friend that during a short discussion of the beef industry in the recent debate on the estimates I set out 23 positive steps that the Government had taken to assist the beef industry. On safety, I repeat that two thirds of cattle farms have never had a case of BSE and 80 per cent. of beef farmers have never had a case of BSE, which is why they are so angry about the overall restrictions on the industry imposed by the European Union ban.
We have made food safety our top priority. We have not knowingly allowed any BSE infectivity into the food chain—hence the beef on the bone ban. As I said a few weeks ago, in the first four months of the year beef imports decreased by 22 per cent. and consumption of beef increased. That means that British consumers are consuming more British beef because they know that this Government are not playing fast and loose with the safety of British beef.

Mr. Michael Jack: I welcome the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) to his post. It resumes a former acquaintanceship that we had in our business careers. At one time he was one of the fairies, but he has moved on since then. Although beef is the only item mentioned in the Government's annual report, can the Minister of State explain why, given that every single sector of British agriculture is in a state of crisis, there is only one paragraph on agriculture in the report, and beef is the only issue discussed?

Mr. Rooker: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to my right hon. Friend.


I understand that at one point one of them dealt with Daz and the other with Ariel. We shall be judged by our actions, and by our actions we know that at the end of the day we shall deliver a much better programme for British agriculture than the previous Government ever began to think about.

Mr. Jack: In the light of the Minister's answer, if he will be judged by his actions, why did his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirm yesterday—in his written answer on the response to the comprehensive spending review—that farm support will fall in real terms during the three years covered by that review? Why did he confirm nothing more than the target of resolving the BSE crisis, giving no firm commitment to campaign to end it, and ending the early retirement scheme, which had never begun, as well as the calf processing aid scheme? Why was there no commitment to negotiate on hill livestock compensatory allowances? Is that really the priority that the Minister gives to agriculture?

Mr. Rooker: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to re-read that five-column answer in Hansard. He has picked out certain passages for his convenience and ignored all the positive points in the report and the answer concerning what we will do for agriculture. Several other answers given yesterday added to the arrangements. We have had to make some hard decisions in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and no one denies that. From the figures in the answer yesterday it can be seen that the legacy of BSE is so great that this year the BSE programme is £4 million greater than the running costs of the Department.

Fishermen (Northumberland)

Mr. A. J. Beith: If he will make a statement about the eligibility of Northumberland fishermen for PESCA assistance. [51692]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): In the United Kingdom, aid under the PESCA Community initiative is available in areas that have been designated as fisheries dependent. There are separate PESCA sub-programmes for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and each has its own priorities for aid.

Mr. Beith: How can it be right that a fisherman in Eyemouth can get a substantial grant to put refrigeration in his boat when a fisherman in Amble, just down the road in Northumberland, cannot do so because MAFF interprets the rules much more restrictively than the Scottish or Northern Ireland Departments? Since the Minister has agreed to review that matter and hopes to make an announcement in a matter of weeks, can we hope for a sympathetic response; and if his response is positive, can we hope for a review of the cases that have been turned down in recent weeks?

Mr. Morley: When PESCA was set up, different regions had different priorities. The priorities that the Government inherited in the English region were based on structural aid rather than aid of the sort to which the right hon. Gentleman refers as regards Scotland. We have

had correspondence on the matter and I understand the case that the right hon. Gentleman makes. That is why we have agreed to review the situation as it applies to England and Scotland. Of course, we will take into account the problem that the right hon. Gentleman's constituent had to face because of the differences of approach.

Advisory Committees

Mr. Alan W. Williams: What steps he has taken to widen membership of advisory committees to include representatives of consumers and environmental organisations. [51693]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have widened the membership of the independent advisory committees that deal with food, health, veterinary medicines, pesticides and environmental concerns to include at least one and sometimes two relevant consumer or lay members where appropriate; and we have some more announcements to make in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and am pleased to hear that there is considerable progress in that direction. However, does he accept that the advisory committees have always tended to be heavily populated by industrialists or academics who derive their livelihoods—consulting fees or research grants—from the industries concerned? It is important that consumers and environmental organisations be strongly represented on the committees if we want a balanced report and if we want to retain public confidence.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is quite right. We are satisfied—I must repeat this, as people have been under attack—with the integrity of all members of the independent advisory committees. We are open and transparent about declarations of interest. Of course, some are statutory committees, such as the one on veterinary products in which the Medicines Commission is involved.
I am pleased to say that most of the lay, non-scientific, consumer representatives appointed to the committees in the past 15 months have been women, which contributes to righting the imbalance that we inherited. My hon. Friend is right to say that the committees have to engender confidence. They are not independent committees as such, although we want them to be committees of independent people—that aspect is crucial—whatever the background from which they come: academia, the health service, industry, and lay and consumer members.

Mr. Tom King: Does the Minister agree that the need in the present crisis in agriculture—the latest figures for the south-west show an 80 per cent. fall in incomes—for regional agricultural committees could hardly be greater? Will he urge the Minister of Agriculture, on taking up his new office, to note not only the seriousness of the situation but the feeling that has grown among farmers that the Government do not care? The best thing he could do in the recess would be to make early visits to as many regions as possible. Will he put the south-west high on his list?

Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although there was a note of criticism behind it.


It is true that the farmers panels were abandoned when we came into office. However, on our regional visits, my ministerial colleagues and I have met liaison groups that have included farmers' representatives and others to take in a much wider spectrum of rural interests and the rural economy than could have been involved if we had stuck to the panels. It goes way beyond agriculture because of the spin-off into other areas. We do not apologise for that.
We will continue our regional visits, as we have for the past 15 months. The pace will be faster now that we have ceased to hold the presidency of the European Union.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister refer to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides the examination undertaken by The Guardian newspaper on the basis of the Environmental Protection Agency report that multinational chemical companies are paying substantial sums to students to use them as human guinea pigs for testing dangerous organophosphate pesticides?

Mr. Rooker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. The research reported in The Guardian today, which was also reported in yesterday's Daily Mail, was done in 1992 and 1996–97. It is therefore not possible to get all the necessary information. Where a contract research laboratory in the United Kingdom undertakes work on pesticides on behalf of an overseas client, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides is not involved. It is for the client laboratory to satisfy itself that the ethical and medical conditions under which the work is carried out are in line with international guidelines under the Helsinki declaration and the guidance issued by the Royal College of Physicians in London.
My inquiries in the past 48 hours lead me to believe that the experiments were conducted in line with international guidelines and in conformity with the guidelines of the Royal College of Physicians. The reports merit further inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Oliver Heald: If he will make a statement on the adequacy of his Department's funding for the implementation of the recommendations of the Glidewell report. [51715]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): To facilitate early progress on implementation of the proposals for the internal restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Treasury has agreed, subject to Parliament agreeing the change in the expenditure estimates, additional provision of £5.3 million for the CPS in the current year. Provision for subsequent years is included in the three-year settlement announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14 July 1998. There are now both a commitment to change and the necessary resources. I look forward to providing the House with a progress report in the autumn.

Mr. Heald: The comprehensive spending review shows an increase from the current year's figure of

£281 million to £312 million for 1999–2000. Does the Attorney-General agree that that is grossly misleading, because spending in 1997–98 was £321 million? Has he secured some increase, or is there a substantial cut in CPS funding as it faces a major reorganisation that will cost a great deal of money?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find a cut. I told him that we are seeking parliamentary authority for an increase of £5.3 million for the present year. If he looks back, he will find that the Government whom he supported planned significant reductions in 1997–98 and 1998–99. I have never suggested that the settlement is anything but tight. He may know that there is a difference between prosecution costs and the running costs of the Department. We shall see as we go how tight the settlement is, but I am confident that we have succeeded in ensuring that money is available for the early implementation of the Glidewell report.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: What has been the reaction of the CPS staff to the publication of the Glidewell report?

The Attorney-General: I am conscious of the attitude of the staff and I am aware, of course, that there will be further uncertainties. These can be minimised, but they cannot be avoided altogether if we are to get the CPS on a sound footing and provide a new start for it. Since the report, the former Solicitor-General and I have made a number of visits to CPS offices. We have been impressed by the warm welcome that CPS staff have given the report. The new chief executive, whose appointment I announced on 1 June, is putting in place mechanisms for receiving feedback from staff on the reorganisation.

Mr. John Burnett: I am delighted to see the new Solicitor-General in the House. We congratulate him and welcome him to his appointment. Will the Attorney-General confirm that securing and enhancing the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service will be at the core of his proposals for its reform? Will he confirm that any integrated unit with police officers attached to it will be under the control and supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions or one of the 42 chief Crown prosecutors?

The Attorney-General: I am aware of the concern of the hon. Gentleman. The criminal justice units were recommended by the Glidewell report in order to ensure better preparation and integration between the work of the police and the prosecution process, which are distinct. The proposals will be considered by my ministerial colleagues and me. I am sure that whatever changes occur will be aimed at the working relationship between the CPS and the police and at making them closer, more effective and more efficient in the fight that we all share against crime.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that decisions on whether cases are to be prosecuted will remain the sole responsibility of the independent prosecutors applying the code for the Crown prosecutors. I am confident that in the way forward we shall not undermine the independence of the CPS.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I join in welcoming the new Solicitor-General to his post. I hope that he will last longer than his predecessor, who appears to have been shuffled off to be the Government's junior enforcer, or perhaps we should say enforcer's apprentice.
Getting back to real business, does the Attorney-General agree that securing an extra £5.3 million for the CPS over the rest of this Parliament cannot possibly meet anything but the most elementary requirements of the Glidewell report? Does he agree that Glidewell recommends that the CPS take over many of the duties of the police admin support units? Does he know—the Home Office failed to answer—how many people are employed in those admin support units? I suggest that it is almost as many as are employed in the CPS itself. Does he agree that, if the CPS is to take over any significant portion of those duties, a massive injection of cash will be needed, which the comprehensive spending review simply does not provide?

The Attorney-General: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his post after his recent illness. He will have heard what I said a moment ago about the reductions that took place in the CPS provision in the last two years. Built into the provision is £6.5 million of transitional costs for the next two years for the implementation of Glidewell. I emphasise that the running costs are obviously cash-controlled, whereas the prosecuting costs have to be looked at as they occur. I am confident that the provision is a good start and will provide the necessary beginning for the implementation of Glidewell.

International Court of Justice

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many of his officials are engaged in cases before the International Court of Justice. [51716]

The Attorney-General: None.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the careful and obviously considered form of words used by the Prime Minister in the House on 22 July in respect of Lockerbie, who in the Government is causing the delay of an announcement that there will be a trial in The Hague under Scottish rules of justice and under a Scottish judge nominated by the Prime Minister; and why is the delay being caused?

The Attorney-General: I know of my hon. Friend's long interest in the matter. I read carefully his speech in the Adjournment debate of 21 July and he has confirmed that he followed closely the considered reply of the Prime Minister on 22 July, which the whole House heard. I have nothing to add to that reply.

Miss Anne McIntosh: May I press the Attorney-General further? The House should be in a position before the recess to know when the case will be brought to trial.

The Attorney-General: That is a matter not for me, but for the Lord Advocate.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Bowen Wells: When he expects to appoint a new Director of Public Prosecutions. [51717]

The Attorney-General: An open competition is at present being conducted under the auspices of the first civil service commissioner. I expect an appointment to be made in the autumn.

Mr. Wells: The Attorney-General has not really answered the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) about the implementation of the Glidewell report—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as it says on the Order Paper.

Mr. Wells: I am coming to the appointment of 42 Crown prosecutors, whom the Attorney-General promised would be appointed by 1 April this year. He ordered that they should be appointed on 27 May, but a study of the comprehensive spending review suggests that those Crown prosecutors will not be appointed until the end of the Parliament—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's original question to the Attorney-General was about when the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects to appoint a new Director of Public Prosecutions—appointment in the singular. Is that not what the Order Paper says?

Mr. Wells: Yes, but the DPP has to make those appointments. My question is: when are those appointments going to be made, and is the money available to make them?

The Attorney-General: Now we are there. The answer, very simply, is that the post of the new DPP has been advertised; we have had responses, which will be considered over the summer; and in the early autumn, I hope, an appointment will be made. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that one has to have a DPP in post first; but once the new DPP is in post, it follows naturally that we can proceed as quickly as practicable, having regard to civil service considerations, to appoint the new chief Crown prosecutors. One follows the other.

Mr. David Winnick: Will not one of the tasks of the new DPP be to try to ensure that those responsible for the murder of Stephen Lawrence are brought to justice? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lawrence case thus far is a denial of justice as great as the miscarriage of justice in the case of Derek Bentley, who was hanged in January 1953?

The Attorney-General: I know of my hon. Friend's deep and long-standing concern about the Lawrence case. Individual cases are for the CPS and important matters are for the director herself. Obviously she, or her successor, will have to consider the evidence as it stands.

Lobbyists

Mr. Nigel Evans: What meetings he has had with representatives from (a) GJW, (b) GPC Market Access and (c) LLM to discuss the prosecution services. [51718]

The Attorney-General: My Department does not have substantial policy responsibilities, and meetings with interested groups outside Government are quite rare. It is not the practice of this Government to make information about such meetings or their content publicly available. The Prime Minister published guidance on Monday setting out the basic principles that should be followed in any contact with people outside Government, including lobbyists.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. Does that mean that the Attorney-General has changed procedure in his Department since the Derek Draper cash-for-access

cronygate scandal, or is he happy that the procedures in his Department were sufficient not to soil its good standing, which was not the case with Downing street?

The Attorney-General: I have made my Department's position clear. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read and study over the recess and improve his knowledge. I know that he is a graduate in politics. During the summer holiday he has 11 weeks to consider the guidance to all civil servants setting out the principles.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) could begin his lessons by learning to read and to understand that in the civil service, and certainly in the Law Officers Department, everything is totally above board and always has been?

The Attorney-General: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's observations.

Local Government

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on local government.
I have today laid before the House a White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People." Copies are available in the Vote Office, together with a summary leaflet.
Today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister published the Government's annual report. It shows that we have made a cracking start in modernising Britain: 177 manifesto commitments, 50 kept or done and 119 under way. There is plenty more to do, and our White Paper today is part of doing more.
The Government are building a modern Britain and a fair society. The White Paper that I am publishing today will help to achieve both. After two decades of creeping centralisation, the White Paper returns power to the people. It sets out proposals to modernise English local government. Those reforms are at the heart of our programme for constitutional change.
The Parliament for Scotland, the Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland, a mayor and assembly for London and the regional development agencies are all part of a package for decentralising power in Britain. It is the most radical and comprehensive package of local government reforms for generations. Previous Governments have changed local government boundaries and structures. Those are not unimportant, but they are not the whole story either. We have seen over the past few years what a distraction such boundary and structure changes can be.
The changes that we are proposing today are about how councils work and how they can be more in touch with the people whom they serve. The changes have been developed in consultation with local government. I have been pleased to work with the Local Government Association, and I want to place on record my support for the LGA. I fully support a single all-party voice for local government. It has enabled my right hon. Friends and me to have regular dialogue with the leaders of the LGA in our central-local partnership meetings.
We want the changes to be the start of renewed, stronger and more accountable local government. It is a programme of reform for the next decade. Councils educate our children, house the homeless, care for the elderly, encourage arts and sports for all, plan better health care, help to regenerate local communities, plan better local transport and create real and lasting jobs. People look to the local council for support when things go wrong. From family breakdown to factory closures, from fire to flood, the local council picks up the pieces.
Earlier this year I visited Warwickshire, where communities were devastated by the worst floods in memory. I spoke to local families whose houses had been wrecked and who had nowhere to go. They looked to the local council and its emergency services. They knew that the council was there for them. When I visited Manchester, I saw the public-private partnership rebuilding the city after its centre was shattered by a terrorist bomb. I spoke to local business people whose enterprises were brought to the brink of disaster. They were dependent on their local council and they knew that their council was there for them.
It is right that the House should be reminded that councils serve the country well. Many thousands of councillors of all political persuasions do an excellent job under difficult circumstances. It is time for the House to make that clear when so many criticisms, often unjustified, are levelled at our councils.
I want all our councils to be up to the standards of the best, not hampered with political organisation from the previous century as they face the new millennium. These proposals will help councils to modernise, to improve their performance and, where necessary, to rid themselves of old-fashioned and inward-looking attitudes. The best councils will act as beacons to the rest. They will be pace setters and centres of excellence, and they will gain new freedoms to show how much the best councils can achieve.
Through best value, all councils will have to learn from and adopt best practice in the delivery of efficient public services, so I want to strengthen local accountability and streamline decision making. I am therefore proposing to allow local choice on new ways of running councils. I want voters to know who is responsible for taking local decisions and how to hold those people to account.
Councils will be required to review their political management structures and to draw up a plan, with a timetable, to introduce new arrangements which will separate the executive. Too often today, too many councillors get sucked into the meetings culture in their town hall, rather than representing their community to the council. We want to give all councillors clear and important roles in representing their communities—some as mayors and cabinet members, and others holding the executive to account.
At present, by law, passed by this House, councils have to conform to a single model of political organisation—the 19th-century committee structure. In place of centralised conformity, we propose a local choice. The local choice will be from a range of models including: an executive mayor directly elected by the people, with a cabinet of council colleagues; a cabinet with a leader appointed by the council; a mayor directly elected by the people to give a political lead, with a full-time manager to run the council; or local people will decide whether they want to keep a directly elected mayor. In special circumstances, if the authority tests the opinion of the electorate, the existing structure can be retained if the electorate so decide. Local people will vote if a council proposes a mayor, and they will have the right to demand a referendum themselves to create a directly elected mayor.
Local systems of political management can be adapted to suit local needs, but the Government will not allow complacency. All councils will need to review their structures and make proposals for change. The Government also want to improve accountability.
We want more people to vote, thus giving more local responsibility for taking crucial spending decisions. Reading the beginning of the White Paper—I cannot recall the page—it is remarkable to learn of the low level of participation in voting in this country as compared with others.

Mr. A. J. Beith: That is because of the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Prescott: It is indeed a challenge for all of us to secure a better voting system, but I might add that the


countries that do better do not necessarily have proportional representation, which is the Liberals' answer to everything. [Interruption.] I must be protected, Madam Speaker.
Our proposals are as follows: yearly elections in most areas, with councils also having a new power to hold referendums on local issues; improved procedures for councils to consult local people; and making it easier to vote. Councils will be able to try out new ideas to make voting easier—wider use of postal votes, electronic voting, mobile polling stations, and voting in supermarkets, railway stations and town centres.
Crude and universal council tax capping is over. As we said in our manifesto, new safeguards will mean more responsibility locally for council spending and taxation, and protection for local people from excessive council tax rises through new reserve powers. As I told the LGA conference earlier this year, I will have those reserve powers, and I will not hesitate to use them if necessary. It will not be crude capping, but it could be called crude Prescott.
Like all public servants, councillors must be beyond reproach. The overwhelming majority of the 2 million people who work for councils and the 20,000 councillors who serve on them perform an outstanding service to the public. They have a tough job and they do it well. Those councillors and public servants resent the doubts that are cast on their integrity by the activities of a few. Hon. Members have much experience, some of it as councillors. I have never been a councillor but I have a great deal of respect for councillors' hard work, dedication and commitment. It is my respect for the greater majority that makes me intolerant of the tiny minority who are guilty of dishonesty, corruption and sleaze.
Local government already has a strict regime—I might point out that it is stricter than the one that operates in the House. However, it has not proved enough, just as our arrangements here have not necessarily proved enough. We shall introduce for local government a tough new ethical framework with strict codes of conduct for councillors and council employees and an independent standards board to deal with complaints about improper behaviour. There will be no hiding place for dishonesty, corruption or sleaze. This is not a political issue: it must be the aim of all those who are in public life.
I now turn to the delivery of local services. I am pleased to announce the end of compulsory competitive tendering. It was divisive and was not always the best way to provide efficient services to local people who had no say whatever in those contracts. We propose a new and demanding duty for councillors to deliver best value. It will give councillors the flexibility that they need to be fair to the many dedicated people who work to provide our public services and it will guarantee the best deal for those who use and depend on those services.
Councillors will give more say to service users and, in partnership with local people, they will set clear service standards and targets for continuous improvement and will publish them so that local people will know the standards that they can expect. Services will be subjected to regular and independent inspection, and I am pleased to announce the creation of a new best value inspectorate as part of the Audit Commission. Local people will play

a part in the inspection process. The Government will act swiftly and effectively if councils fail to tackle serious or persistent failures.
We propose a new duty on councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas in co-operation with public, private and voluntary bodies and local people. That will make councils more effective in leading their communities and serving their people. The capital finance system will be made simpler, so that councils can organise their capital investment and assets in the best way.
Just as I want to improve the accountability of councils to voters, I also want to strengthen the relationship between councils and their businesses. National business rates will stay but, within defined limits, we want councils to be able to vary the rate locally, with councils and business agreeing on how any extra money that is raised will be spent. Once again, that will give councils a stake in the success of their local businesses, and local businesses a stake in the success of their councils.
The proposals are good for councils and will enable them to fulfil their potential to be a powerful force for progress and social justice. The proposals are good for councillors because they will be able to do more for their local communities and able to serve and represent their voters more effectively. Above all, our proposals are good for local people. They will have better services that will be delivered by more accountable councils. The purpose of the proposals is to give people a bigger say and a better deal—to put local people first. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for making his White Paper available to us at 2.45 pm. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government are now addressing a wide range of local authority issues. The Opposition share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the vast majority of councils and councillors conduct themselves properly and responsibly. I should mention that, of course, it is not councils that educate our children but teachers, many of whom, although not all, are employed by councils.
The Opposition will judge the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, first, by whether they improve value for money for service users and for taxpayers and, secondly, by whether they increase the accountability of councils to voters. Is he aware that the White Paper is published at a time of great concern about the rising cost of local government? This year, there were record rises in council tax, averaging 8 per cent. in England, which is more than double the rate of inflation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures that I received from the Library this week, which show that, as a direct result of the comprehensive spending review, council tax will rise by 5 per cent. a year in real terms for each of the next three years? Will he confirm that council tax payers will therefore pay substantially more council tax every year for the rest of this Parliament just to maintain existing services? Is he aware also that there is great concern about abuses in local government, to which he made some reference?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the replacement of compulsory competitive tendering by best value is in danger of being a smokescreen behind which the discipline of competition is removed? Will he not


admit that CCT did bring huge improvements in the quality of service and delivered massive savings for the taxpayer? Will he confirm that many Labour councils are already anticipating the end of CCT by awarding more contracts in-house?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reserve powers that he retains over council spending mean that, effectively, capping continues in all but name? From the point of view of councils, does that not simply replace crude and universal capping, which he has pledged to abolish, with crude and arbitrary capping, another broken Labour promise, alongside tax, class sizes, waiting lists and the welfare state.
On business rates, are not the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in effect just another new tax on business? Do they not mean that, for the first time since the uniform business rate was introduced, all businesses face the possibility of above-inflation increases in their business rate? Will he explain how businesses, especially small businesses, will be consulted before councils put the business rate up?
Will all types of council apart from parish councils be invited to adopt a new model of operation? Will councils be forced to choose one of the models that he has referred to, or can they opt to continue with present arrangements? If they choose the option of a directly elected mayor, with a full-time manager, what will be the role of elected councillors? Does he believe that those new models will involve more or less spending on administration? Does he claim that any of those new models will improve the scrutiny of council decisions?
I welcome the concern that the right hon. Gentleman expresses about ethical standards. I fully agree that concern about that issue is not a party political matter. Nevertheless, will he not admit that he is worried, as his Scottish counterpart is, about evidence of widespread abuse in Labour councils, of which we have had more reports even today?
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the level of turnout. In the light of his comments—which were not in his written statement—I invite him to join the campaign against proportional representation that Conservative Members will shortly launch. Can he produce any evidence that introducing annual council elections will increase voter turnout? Indeed, given the poor turnout in the recent London referendum, what makes him think that the turnout in other local referendums will be any higher?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will examine the detail of his White Paper because we have found that the fine print of new Labour documents often contains nasty surprises? Finally, is he aware that best value will not automatically improve services or cut costs; that a new model of political organisation does not put a single extra teacher in the classroom or care for one more old person; and that no one will be persuaded that allowing him to select beacon councils, as the White Paper suggests, will return power to the people?

Mr. Prescott: It is nice that the Opposition have finally found some policies and are prepared to campaign on proportional representation. We await with interest what else will come about. We have applied different voting

systems to elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the mayor and the assembly for London. Lord Jenkins's commission is looking at proportional representation and we are committed to a referendum in respect of parliamentary elections. We will have to see how those matters affect local councils, but no decision has been taken, and the White Paper does not address the issue.
The Opposition seem to have changed their mind since they were in government about a mayor and assembly for London, devolution and a Scottish Parliament. They soon adjusted to the reality of political life, and we await their proposals on proportional representation.

Mr. Yeo: You have changed your mind.

Mr. Prescott: I have given examples of adjustments that have to be made. It is up to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to show whether I have changed my views. I certainly welcome his endorsement and that of many in the House of my view that, despite all the attacks that have been made on local councils, we should remind ourselves what an effective job they do.
There is common agreement on the need to improve the position of local councils, to give them powers and resources to be more accountable; and for local people to have a greater say. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition made that point to the local government conference when he said that he wanted people to have a greater say in matters relating to local councils. I welcome those remarks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to value for money. The efficient production of services is important and the White Paper is designed to achieve it. The compulsory spending review—[Laughter.] I gave the Opposition the chance to get a laugh in, but I think I was well ahead of them. I have done it before and perhaps that shows an attitude of mind.
On the comprehensive spending review, the settlement to local authorities is generally agreed to be most generous as compared with previous settlements. It also covers a three-year period so that local authorities have sufficient time to settle their planning priorities. Our projections for inflation and growth in the economy are consistent with that. We must wait to see what happens in the coming years, but most people would agree with us.
We have planned for three years instead of one. That will provide greater stability to local authority financing and it is what local authorities wanted. It is at the heart of what we have done. As for efficiency and value, the idea of having beacon councils is to say that certain councils are excellent and that we want to reward excellence and encourage other local authorities to reach their standards. That is another step in the right direction of getting good service efficiently at the best price and for the best value.
In regard to best value, it is generally agreed that compulsory competitive tendering was extremely expensive in the long run. It concentrated solely on price, largely at the expensive of the people employed in the industries concerned, and it resulted in a reduction in the quality of services. I do not have to make the case; it has been pretty well made by any analysis of compulsory competitive tendering.
Although we are interested in efficiency and price, other issues of best value must be considered. That has come out of all our surveys, and we intend to bring it


home to people. It has been demonstrated in the 40 pilot areas where we have implemented new systems. There were some improvements in productivity under compulsory competitive tendering, and certain practices were changed that should have been changed.
The activities of some local authorities show that the initiative for change—whether or not it arose in that way—is to be welcomed, but other factors must be taken into account in achieving best value. That is why we have highlighted the fact that under compulsory competitive tendering there was much too concerned to pay contractors—

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The unions.

Mr. Prescott: In many areas, they were not trade union members. If the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) looked at the facts instead of indulging his obsession with trade unions, he would discover that many of the people involved were not trade union members. They could not be protected because, under compulsory competitive tendering, local authorities were obliged to accept the cheapest price.
The hon. Member for North Essex might also be concerned for the taxpayer because the consequence of reduced wages under CCT was very often a considerable rise in the cost of family credit. The taxpayer paid for the low wages enforced by CCT. The Opposition often lecture the Government on cutting expenditure on welfare and subsidies, yet at the same time, they propose policies that would have the opposite effect. Under CCT, employers avoided their responsibility to pay employees a fair wage for providing a decent service. That is the argument concerning best value and CCT.
I have made the position on capping reasonably clear. We need legislation on the reserve powers to which I referred. Present laws will, of course, apply in the next financial year. We have made absolutely clear to local authorities that they have a three-year expenditure programme and that we want them to take that into account. We will be setting rates for average council tax increases over that period on which we will make an announcement in—I think—November. It is then up to councils to act responsibly, as I hope they will.
To be fair, most councils spent within their expenditure ranges. Only a handful found themselves facing conflict and the imposition of capping. That applied only once most recently—and there were special circumstances—as it did the previous year. We are quite prepared to allow councils a three-year programme, and we want them to be flexible on it. We are not indifferent to levels of council expenditure—no Government can be. After all, central Government provide councils with about 75 per cent. of their expenditure. I will properly take into account the reserve powers.
On the issue of new model organisations, we provide different choices. If we move more towards having paid councillors and reducing allowances, if we want to attract more and different people to council work, and if we have full-time mayors or executives, there will be some cost involved. That is the same for Parliament, where we have moved more towards full-time than part-time conditions. That is a price that one can pay for democracy. We want an improved democratic local council structure, which allows much more open and accountable decisions to be made and which gives councillors more power to check the executive's decisions.
All the models split the decision-making power between, on the one hand, an executive, as we have in Parliament, and, on the other, councillors who can openly question what is going on. All too often, decisions at council committee meetings are decided beforehand and councillors merely act as administrators, putting their hands in the air. We want to change that; I do not think that people like that. We want fundamental change, and that is what we will bring about.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in order to implement it, we need legislation? What timetable does he envisage for such legislation, and when does he hope that it will begin affecting local councils?

Mr. Prescott: As early as possible, I sincerely hope. My hon. Friend will know that the matter is for the Ministerial Committee on the Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation, since it proposes which Bills are to be in the Queen's Speech. I cannot comment on that at the moment.

Mr. Paul Burstow: We very much welcome much of the language in the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, although, when we look at the White Paper in more detail, I think that we shall find quite a few areas in which our approach will substantially differ from the Government's. The Liberal Democrats believe that local government is in need of reform. Too many councillors do not listen to the public. Too many councils are one-party states, and complacent about the way in which they run town halls. That is why the White Paper is a missed opportunity. Rather than a White Paper that tackles the first-past-the-post voting system, which so undermines local government legitimacy, we shall have annual elections and supermarket voting. We will return to the subject time and again, no matter how much certain hon. Members snore.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that the prospects of a close result, the possibility of a change of council, and councillors who are more than just mere agents of Whitehall will do more to increase voter turnout and interest in local government? Is he aware that a fair voting system based on the single transferable vote would have done more to open up town halls and challenge one-party states? Will he confirm that the proposals give the Secretary of State wider powers to intervene in the affairs of town halls? If councils deliver new Labour's agenda, they will be rewarded with beacon status, which is not so much freedom as a slightly longer leash from Whitehall.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his proposed changes to the capping and financing regime fail to clarify accountability, and that local electors will still be left wondering whether Ministers or their councillors are responsible for council tax rises? Will he also take this opportunity to go a little further with the proposals for citizens' initiatives with regard to directly elected mayors, and provide for the electorate to seek to recall a directly elected mayor if he proves incompetent?
The White Paper hands more power to central Government and reduces local discretion; it sees democratic local government as nothing more than an


administrative arm of Whitehall. Do not the Secretary of State's proposals therefore represent another victory for Whitehall over town hall?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, especially his congratulations on my use of language—not something with which I am usually associated, as Mr. Parris will tell us if he is in the Press Gallery. That is welcome praise, wherever it comes from, and I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Nevertheless, like many hon. Members on the Government Benches—and, I suspect, on the Opposition side too—I still do not feel that many of the evils and wrongs in our society could be removed simply by changing the electoral system to one of proportional representation. I do not want to enter into that argument now, but we can examine electoral systems in different parts of the world and see that such changes are not necessarily guaranteed by this or that voting system. Participation in voting is crucial, and there are also other factors, as well as the type of vote.
I do not dismiss other ideas entirely; we have tried different types of votes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Scotland, in Wales and in the London mayoral elections, so we are being quite radical in introducing change. We may not perhaps be as radical as
—

Mr. Burstow: We want more.

Mr. Prescott: I understand that, but we choose to strike a balance. We are not convinced of the argument for local authorities, although we are now examining it in connection with constituencies, through Lord Jenkins's commission on proportional representation. I am not a great fan of that myself, as hon. Members may have guessed. None the less, that is where we are at the moment.
We need to make a judgment, and turnout certainly does not depend simply on the voting system. We will consider the commission's findings and all the ideas; I agree that it may contribute to the arguments and debates on the Government side of the House. However, new ideas will have to be judged in terms of accountability. I have always thought that proportional representation means that 5 per cent. of the electorate run the Government, as we have seen in Germany and other countries. So I am not convinced about that either. [Interruption.] Of course, the 5 per cent. in Germany were Liberals, so I can see why some hon. Members argue that case.
As for the Secretary of State's powers of intervention, on balance, Secretaries of State will have to reserve powers for themselves. They cannot be indifferent to levels of expenditure on providing services when 75 per cent. of it comes from the state. Both the Government and local councils will carry the responsibility for what the electorate feel about the bills for council spending, because people are aware that it is both the Government and councils that make the choices. We are saying that it is reasonable to expect a certain level of services to be provided and a certain level of finance to be required. That is a matter for political decision.
As we said in the White Paper, if councils want to spend more than we allow, they can, but they will not necessarily get a subsidy from central Government to do

so. Councils can make that choice and explain it to the electorate. That is taking things further than any previous capping system, and it is a step in the right direction. Local authorities have to make the decision themselves.
As for the powers of intervention and the powers of local authorities to get on with some jobs, new powers and new resources are involved, and the procedures that we have set out for partnerships give them greater authority and autonomy to do some of those things within the balanced framework that we have set.
I cannot read my notes here; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman made one last point—[Interruption.] The point about Whitehall—

Mr. Burstow: I said "recall".

Mr. Prescott: I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman was talking about the right to recall the mayor. Where a council does not carry out any of the changes, the electorate will have the chance to have a kind of referendum—a 10 per cent. petition, we could say—to call for a mayor. However, the argument that, once the mayor has been elected, there should be a right of recall if he has not done too well after 12 months in office will, I imagine, send a shiver through the House, when hon. Members think that judgments could be made on individual Members' competence within their first 12 months. I am not convinced of the argument, and I suspect that, if I invited hon. Members to vote for it, I would not carry the Liberals with me, either. None the less, it is another interesting idea from the Liberals, who never get the chance of having the power to implement their ideas.

Mr. Derek Foster: Will my right hon. Friend totally reject the lectures from Conservative Members, who brought us the poll tax, continually denigrated local government and changed our constitution by making local government merely an agent of central Government? In wholly welcoming the White Paper, may I say that his celebration of local government's performance will be widely welcomed in the county of Durham? His words represent one of the best ways in which to ensure that local councillors will embrace his modernising agenda. May I ask him to go further and to pay tribute to all local councillors, who in many cases have sacrificed their careers, families and social lives without any thought of return?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks; I very much agree with what he says. To be fair, the Opposition have agreed with us on the need for change and I welcome their commitment. Indeed, that was almost bound to come, as the Leader of the Opposition said to the Local Government Association:
I've come here today to tell you the Conservative Party is changing.
That little I accept and welcome; change in the right direction is for the good whether in the Tory party or in the Labour party.
My right hon. Friend was right to say that councillors feel almost besieged by press comments. We should say loudly and more often that the great majority of councils are not involved in any wrongdoing. As I know from my experience in Hull, if I may be so bold as to mention it,


the press pays a great deal of attention to any allegations that are made. I wish the same amount of publicity was given when it is found that there is no evidence to support the allegations and the allegations are withdrawn. We would all welcome balanced reporting and more credit being given to the work that councillors do.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain the intellectual paradox whereby the Government are delegating greater powers to local authorities, but power in the Labour party nationally is being increasingly centralised?

Mr. Prescott: I will not pray in aid Mr. Archie whatever his name is. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to say that the intellectual paradox was that central Government wanted both to give local government more power and to retain some influence and control—striking the right balance is the problem at the centre of any debate about local government. In the White Paper, we have tried to strike a balance; it will not be acceptable to all, but at least we have tried to outline the proper responsibilities of central Government and local government.
I am happy that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the thrust of the White Paper is to decentralise, as that is contested in other quarters. If I have time, I shall tell him all the things that the Labour party has decentralised in the past two or three years—they are considerable, they are consistent and they work.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that he is taking to lift the shackles that the Tories imposed on local government over the past two decades. I also thank the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who has worked hard to improve the relationship between the House and local government—long may she continue to do so. I believe that the problems in local government commenced in 1974, when the Tories reorganised local authorities and moved responsibilities from local communities to remote metropolitan district authorities.
As chairman of the special interest group of metropolitan authorities in the House of Commons, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look at financing? The distribution of resources needs to be fairer. Some London authorities receive one and a half times as much as some metropolitan authorities do to teach a pupil, and the same applies to community care. I thank him for tackling the problem of capital debt, but will he also ensure that resources are much more fairly channelled to local government nationally? The electorate would be much more interested in electing people to serve them if they realised that they would receive the services that they wanted.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The House will have listened to him with considerable care owing to his long experience, not only in local authorities but as an Opposition spokesman on these matters. He made some interesting points. He asked whether we should begin to change the financial distribution between different types of authorities, and he referred to metropolitan, unitary and district authorities.

There is an argument there. We have talked about changing the standard spending assessment distributions, and our commitment to a three-year review will bring some stability to achieve that.
I was struck by all the delegations which used to come to see me and my Ministers each year to discuss and marginally change the SSAs—in most cases, not change them. That was not a good use of the time of councillors or of Ministers. I have said that we needed to change that, and the three-year financial programme for local authorities means that we can settle down and look at how SSAs can be properly distributed. There are many complaints about the system.
Finally, I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong). Anyone standing at this Dispatch Box as Secretary of State knows that much of the hard work is done by Ministers of State and by Under-Secretaries. I could not be better served than by the present Minister of State in this matter.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does the Secretary of State accept that a rising group in local government are concerned at his replacement for capping which they see as interventionist and subjective? What will be his criteria for action in that matter?

Mr. Prescott: We have said that capping is unfair and we have made our case on that. We accept the responsibility for public expenditure in that area. We have chosen to use an element of reserve powers which identify what councils can spend. That will have an implication, as I will announce, for what we think the average rises will be. If a council chooses to go above that figure, it will face the first penalty—it will not receive the Government support. With the reserve powers under the new legislation, persistent offenders will be faced with a situation where the penalty is made retrospective, and we will take that into account in the settlement of their expenditure over that year. That allows us greater flexibility.
The hon. Gentleman will know from his considerable experience in local government—he has more experience than me—that capping was very much limited to the one year. People had to make the case within that year. In some cases, authorities got into difficulties with public expenditure or Government financial support—as was the case in Derbyshire—and to ask them to try to settle that in one year was absolutely impossible. Councils could face real penalties of cuts, as in Derbyshire. We did not concede everything that Derbyshire wanted, but we thought that there was a case because of the difficulties over the years. This three-year programme will allow us to deal with the matter in a fair and flexible way, and with a great deal more social justice.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the new scrutiny powers there will be strong powers for back-bench councillors to inquire into the activities of councils—powers sadly lacking under the present system, which so frustrated those of us trying to dig out the Westminster scandal during the 1980s? A condemnation of the Westminster scandal by those on the Opposition Front Bench is sadly lacking. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will


be powers to take enforcement action where such scandals are detected, and that these can be brought into effect quickly—rather than waiting years and years for, so far, no outcome whatever in the Westminster scandal?

Mr. Prescott: This is an area of some difficulty, but I do not wish to enter the party political exchanges. We can all reel off councils, but the response should not be just to turn round and say, "What about Westminster?" That does not help us. We should all agree that something has to be done. That is the general will of the House. To name councils with problems does not help the House and certainly does not help the councillors.
We need to ensure that councillors have the powers to deal with the problems. We are increasing the powers of scrutiny by introducing a new structure. There will be an executive—it could be a mayor or a leader—for councillors to scrutinise. Council decisions are generally taken in groups. That is the same for any political party. Even when there is power sharing between political parties, agreement has to be reached.
The overwhelming majority of councillors are asked simply to have a little discussion and put up their hands in a committee meeting to endorse a decision that has already been made. Scrutiny is a far better system, and we have endorsed it and put it at the heart of our White Paper. Councillors will be able to check the executive and the chairs—even those of their own party—and scrutinise decisions.
When the citizens listen to councillors putting their case, they often complain to their Member of Parliament that the decision had already been made and that all the councillor could do was say, "I'm sorry, I can't say anything." That does nothing for accountability or for democracy, and it affects turnout at elections. Scrutiny will put greater pressure on the executive, and decision making will be much more open and transparent. The press and everyone else will be able to see an open, public debate on decisions that affect so many people's lives.
Scrutiny is a major step towards dealing with wrong decisions, corruption and other problems. The strengthening of the standards board will mean that there will be a readily accessible body for people to complain to, which will serve democratic accountability in councils.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: On the matter of finance, I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will look sympathetically at the authorities that share the characteristics of urban and rural areas and are represented by the town and country finance issues group.
The White Paper, however, is more about restoring the credibility and integrity of local government, which must be an important task for us all. Is it not therefore all the more deplorable that, when we are seeking to ensure that taxpayers' money is not used for party political purposes, the White Paper should be published on the same day as the most deplorable example of such an abuse that I have seen in 15 years? Page 31 has the caption, "I am still hopeful that Tony Blair will keep his promises." That is no different from a party political document, but it

is funded by the taxpayer nationally. That is no example to set local government, and I intend to take the matter up with the Cabinet Secretary.

Mr. Prescott: I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will be worrying about that. I say that with a certain amount of cynicism, because most of us remember the practice of the previous Administration in their 18 years in office. I do not normally get into slagging off different periods of government, because it is not useful, but I remember that the Government's policies and achievements used to be recorded by asking Ministers what a Department had done since such and such a date, and that that would always happen to be the date of that Government's election.
All we have done is put our achievements in a proper annual report, record what we have done and be accountable for it. I call that democratic accountability. I would have been very happy for the previous Government's achievements to have been in a report that we could have debated in the House. The report makes it easier to have a debate than under the old system, whereby a question had to be put to the relevant Minister.
This is a new form of accountability. Much recent argument in the House has concerned whether the Labour party is keeping its promises. That is constantly asked at Prime Minister's Question Time. The Prime Minister can make a statement here, so why cannot we as a Government make a comprehensive statement in an annual report? I hope that all Governments will follow that practice. Governments can be in favour with the electorate one year and out the other. Good year or bad, Governments will now be accountable for their record: the record of what happened and not of what the Opposition put about.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that only a minority of the country still has two-tier local government. Does his White Paper give such authorities the option to become unitary authorities? If that is not possible in the short term, does not the fact that the authority that spends the least—less than 20 per cent. of the total—has to collect the money go against the accountability that he seeks? Should not county councils have to collect their own money so that there is direct accountability, and so that people know where the money is being spent?

Mr. Prescott: I said at the beginning of my statement that much legislation over the past couple of decades, has been about organisational structure rather than services. Unitary authorities exist, and the general opinion on both sides of the House is supportive of them. Unitary authorities have increased during the past few years. Two-tier government remains in metropolitan areas and in county areas where there are district authorities.

Mr. Jenkin: Three-tier.

Mr. Prescott: In the background, there is also regional government, which I have always supported, which may shock the hon. Member for North Essex. There are questions about the structure of local government, but it would take two Parliaments to be able to deal with them. Anyone who considers organisational change in local government will know that there must first be a consultation document, then legislation that will take time


to pass. I am an advocate of regional government, but for now there exist local authority structures that are both unitary and two-tier. We will seek to make authorities work as best they can. Where there are injustices, particularly as regards finance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, we shall seek to make matters fairer.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the consequence of today's announcement will be that people up and down the country will pay a lot more in council tax without any improvement in quality of service? His White Paper is entitled "In Touch with the People", but does he accept that he is out of touch with the people if he cannot tell us that people will get better quality services for the same or less council tax?

Mr. Prescott: Some of our changes to local authorities will make for better value, greater efficiency and improved provision of services. If we can do that, we can get more services for the same money. That is what efficiency and effectiveness are about. We have made changes to local authority financing regarding Treasury rules with which I was in considerable disagreement. Trading corporations in local authorities, such as airports—Manchester was a classic example—found themselves in difficulties because they had to borrow against the requirements of local government, instead of the requirements of a profitable company with considerable assets.
Changes to those rules will relieve local authorities of some expenditures and difficulties, and will enable them to put resources into providing better services. That will not cost the taxpayer one penny. We are making more intelligent use of the financial framework in which local authorities operate. Along with our best value system, that will mean better services. That belief lies at the heart of the White Paper, and we will be able to judge it over the next couple of years.

Judy Mallaber: I welcome the Secretary of State's reaffirmation of the value of public service, and the measures for greater local accountability and local scrutiny that must go with it. Would he say more about the criteria that will be used to assess progress by local councils in considering political structures to meet that aim, and the aim of being closer to the people? Who will decide, and how, which councils are beacon authorities?

Mr. Prescott: The final point is highly relevant, and the White Paper contains a considerable section about beacon authorities. We use the term to identify centres of excellence. Some authorities, as we know, can build houses or provide services more efficiently than others. We want to highlight those authorities as offering the standards that we want for local authorities.

Mr. John Bercow: Like Wandsworth.

Mr. Prescott: It might be Wandsworth, or it might be a Labour authority. I do not seek to make any ideological point about it. Where best practice exists, we should try to use it. Where good practices do not exist, we should

act to say so. The White Paper says that they will be unacceptable, and that we are quite prepared to take action in areas that do not improve.
Local democracy is not about having the worst, inefficient services; it is about being proud of running local services. Most citizens have no chance of determining a council one way or the other, and we are obliged to do something about services. Beacon councils meet that argument. On setting targets, whether for housing, or for provision of services, the Audit Commission has already done some work.
We should like to talk more about the outputs than about the inputs. The Audit Commission is largely concerned about getting value for money. That is quite proper, but the services that emerge are equally important. That is where we draw the distinction between compulsory competitive tendering and best value. We shall negotiate those targets with the local government associations and we shall take that matter into account. Governments always come under a certain amount of pressure when dealing with public expenditure to bring about the best practice. We stand for better quality services and best practices. That is what the White Paper is about.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted with much of what the Secretary of State has had to say this afternoon. When the White Paper materialises into a Bill, I hope that he will not give up completely on the idea of having a change in the voting system for local government. Some of us think that that exercise would bring more accountability.
Can he explain how the options for change in the way in which a local authority is organised and run will be put to the people? I know from my experience of over 30 years in local government, some 20-odd elections and four changes in local government organisation that the party in power at the time decides on how the options are put to the people. The end result is nearly always geared to support the continuation of power rather than to give more democracy to the people.
I am refreshed to hear that the matter of regional government remains high on the Secretary of State's agenda, as it is on mine. As his White Paper passes through its consultation exercise I should welcome him adding weight to the idea that regional government is an option to which we should look forward.

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, particularly for his words about regional government. As we all know, these major constitutional changes or, at least, boundary changes, are extremely controversial. There great heat generated by whether the area we live in is called one thing or another. I shall not pick an example because these matters get particularly hot. I believe in these changes and I shall take every opportunity to push in that direction.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have set up the Jenkins commission to look into types of political representation and voting systems. We have a manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the issue also. Those are some steps towards what he is asking for. We are trying different electoral systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and, indeed, the London mayor. The system of election for the mayor is different from that for the assemblies. It tries to encourage the maximisation of the vote.
The election of mayor requires a candidate to achieve 50 per cent. support. We will use a system of voting that will encourage that. If there are more than two or three candidates, it will allow for it to be judged which of the last two candidates gets more than 50 per cent. of the vote. The maximisation of the vote is designed to encourage support for the mayor. Indeed, the additional member system allows for a combination of the system of direct election of a member to a constituency and the top-up principle.
Given our proposals for these elections, it is fair to say that this is a radical agenda and a major change in our electoral process. It is right for us to claim that, even if we do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman wants us to do.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: These are innovative proposals which will transform the face of local government and will be widely welcomed. My right hon. Friend said that local authorities could trigger referendums. Given that we want local authorities to speak on behalf of their entire community, will there be any restriction on the types of issue and question that can be put to the voters in a referendum? Is there any provision for the voters themselves to trigger a referendum?

Mr. Prescott: Our White Paper may not go as far as my hon. Friend wants in regard to questions in referendums. We have chosen to suggest ways forward. For example, with regard to the mayor, the local authority is required to put its proposal forward and have a vote on it. If citizens are to initiate a referendum they must produce a petition signed by 10 per cent. of those involved. That is not a unique idea. It is used for parish councils—where a certain area calls for a parish area. In Hull, either Beverley or East Yorkshire—I think it was Beverley—was campaigning hard for that. My hon. Friend has granted Beverley the right to have a parish area because 10 per cent. of the people involved produced a petition.
We are prepared to consider a number of suggestions and one could be a proposal for an authority that wants either the mayor, the chief executive or the change in structure. We should also bear it in mind—I have said this once, but think that I should repeat it, particularly for those councils that might not like the idea of changing those structures—that, if the existing structure is found to be acceptable, that option can be put to the electorate,

who can say, "We don't want a change. We're happy to accept the council's verdict." In many cases, the referendums will not be decision-making referendums but will merely offer advice.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Deputy Prime Minister go into more detail about his conclusions on page 40 of the White Paper regarding more frequent elections? What will be the position for councils affected by the Local Government Commission's ward redistribution, whose cases are before his Department and which have not taken into account the possibility of yearly elections? Will he take it from me that such elections are not necessarily the answer that he seems to think they will be?
Derbyshire Dales district council is elected every four years, whereas Amber Valley district council has yearly elections, but the turnout in Derbyshire Dales is, in the main, higher than that in Amber Valley. Therefore, annual elections will not necessarily result in a great increase in turnout. There is a difference between district councils, which do not spend much money, and county councils, which provide the majority of services in the shire county areas. The White Paper states that the counties will have elections every two years. However, as the wards will be much larger, that policy is worrying, particularly in large rural areas such as mine.

Mr. Prescott: We made it clear in our manifesto that we wanted more regular elections and we are taking into account the different election cycles. For example, some unitary authorities are elected by thirds, with elections each year for three years and the fourth year fallow. That will also be the case in London, where we propose to hold the elections for the mayor and the assembly in the fallow year; so we will have elections there every year.
There are real difficulties in having multi-member arrangements for the counties, so we have decided to allow elections for half the seats every two years—so all the seats will be covered in four years—with a district holding its elections every two years. That will allow more regular and frequent elections, but will also take into account the fact that whereas towns and highly populated areas can have multi-member constituencies, that is not the case in the county areas and so we have to provide a proper balance for them. That is why we have arrived at that conclusion and why we have received a certain amount of criticism about the fact that there will not always be yearly elections. I hope that we have found the best way to make elections more frequent and will achieve that.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business of the House for the first week back after the summer recess.
MONDAY 19 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the conclusions of the Government's strategic defence review.
WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Human Rights Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the 10th report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on housing; followed by a debate on the seventh report from the Trade and Industry Committee on reform of European structural funds. Both debates will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.

Sir George Young: I am grateful for notice of the business for the first week back. I welcome the right hon. Lady to her first business questions, and look forward to working with her. In that spirit, may I suggest that she glance at the website at No. 10, whose Cabinet page still shows her as President of the Board of Trade?
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be an oral statement at 11 am tomorrow on the roads review, and explain why all the other oral statements after the comprehensive spending review took place within a few days of it, while this one was held back until the Friday that the House rises? When we return, can we have a debate in Government time on the new role of the enforcer at the Cabinet Office, to give the House a clearer idea of how he will operate and what his remit is? How will he kick-start the stalled programme of welfare reform, caught, as we heard yesterday, between two warring Departments? How will he arbitrate between No. 10 and No. 11 on such issues as the future of the Paymaster General?
When do the Government hope to receive and publish the report of the Jenkins commission on electoral reform? Can we have a debate on it? Will the Labour party do what the Conservatives have done, and place in the Library of a copy its submission to the commission?
On today's costly and revisionist annual report, should the Prime Minister not hold himself to account in the Chamber of the House of Commons rather than in the rose garden at No. 10? Should he not do so before all Members of the House, rather than a hand-picked team of Ministers?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It is not my first business questions, because I have been shadow Leader of the House. I do not know whether he thinks that I am on performance-related pay but he asked a lot of questions, all of which I will endeavour to deal with. I assure him that there is no significance in—and nothing sinister about—the roads statement being made tomorrow,

which is a sitting day. It has not been held back; it is a matter of it being ready. At business questions, Members always want statements, but every other day they do not want them, because they take time from debates. It is always difficult.
The right hon. Gentleman seeks a debate on the role of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I am sure that there will continue to be Opposition days, so it is a matter that he and his colleagues can continue to pursue. I know that they are looking for ways to fill the time, as they have no policy of their own to debate. He will have to consider that.
On the Jenkins commission, I do not know the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I will inquire about the issues that he raised on that. He asked about why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's annual report was not presented to the House. He overlooks the fact that, obviously and inevitably in the annual report, the Government report on what has already been done and that a parliamentary question on the annual report was answered. Scrutiny in the House through statements and questions and so on are for future policy. I assure him that all the issues have been aired in the House. I commend the example of producing such a report to the Conservatives, though I am not sure what they would put in it.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back at the Dispatch Box—I know that all my colleagues join me in that. I particularly commend her good sense in debating the Select Committee report on housing in the week we return. Having set such a good example, will she also allow us to debate the Select Committee reports on regional airports and other aspects of transport, because they are all equally good?

Mrs. Beckett: Any report produced by a Committee in which my hon. Friend had a role would be worth reading. I shall bear in mind her view that the reports merit examination in the House—but not, I fear, in the first week back.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In welcoming and congratulating the right hon. Lady, may I say how much we appreciate the work of her predecessor as Leader of the House? I hope that she will extend my felicitations to her predecessor.
I remind the right hon. Lady that the Leader of the House has two roles. She must ensure that the Government's business is carried through, but she must also represent the views of all Back Benchers and parties. I draw her attention to early-day motion 1569.
[That this House is appalled at the behaviour of a small but organised group of Tory honourable Members who appear to be acting as 'a party within a party' in blocking the progress of Private Members' Bills that have the support of the House; notes the inability of the leadership of the Conservative Party to deal with these backbench honourable Members who seem to be running the Party; and hopes that the House can find time in this Session to consider and pass those Ballot Bills that were blocked by those Tory honourable Members in the order that they appeared on the Order Paper for 3rd July, namely the Fireworks Bill, a safety measure which would decrease firework accidents, the Energy Conservation (Housing)


Bill, which would help people living in cold homes to keep warmer, the Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill, which would ensure that customers get full measures in public houses, the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, which would help stamp out cruelty in puppy farms, the Energy Efficiency Bill, which would help home buyers insulate their homes and cut fuel bills and the Local Authority Tenders Bill; and further hopes that, if necessary, provision can be made to bring proceedings to a close on each of those Bills after reasonable time.]
A total of 180 hon. Members of all parties have expressed concern about the treatment of private Member's Bills. I appreciate that a debate will not be possible tomorrow, but will she see if some action can be taken in the spillover period to deal with the matter?
Can the Leader of the House give us any information about the timetable for the freedom of information Bill? Will there be time in the second week of the spillover Session for a debate on the White Paper on local government published today and just introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister? During the long recess, when she perhaps has more time for reading than has yet been available to her, will the right hon. Lady carefully examine the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee's first report on the legislative programme, in the hope that they will be of use to her and her colleagues in deciding how next Session's business may be undertaken in the House?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am aware of the excellent work done by my predecessor, and I know that she will be grateful to him for his observations. She said that the Committee would examine the procedure for private Members' Bills. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that, in due course, the Committee will examine that matter.
I have taken due note of what the hon. Gentleman said about what we might discuss in the spillover. I cannot, I am afraid, cast any light on the timetable for the freedom of information Bill. I hear his concern to debate the White Paper that has just been announced, and I will bear it in mind. I assure him that I intend to take some time during the recess to study the work of the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position? When she is thinking about business for next Session, will she consider the possibility of holding a series of debates, preferably opened by the Prime Minister, to give the House an opportunity to debate the performance of each Government Department?
I do not wish to cause my right hon. Friend any embarrassment, but will she ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry is at the top of that list of debates, so that we can highlight its achievements over the past 15 years——[Interruption.]—-15 months—including the national minimum wage and the White Paper "Fairness at Work"? It is necessary that we highlight those achievements and the work of the previous Secretary of State, who introduced those measures. If we have such a

debate opened by the Prime Minister, we shall be able to question him on the reasons why changes were made in that Department recently, as well as in other Departments.

Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestions for discussions in the House, and for his kind remarks. I take seriously the observations of all hon. Members. I will certainly take seriously his suggestion that we should debate the way in which Government Departments handle their business. He will know that the time of the House, especially with a heavy legislative programme for a reforming Government, is always at a premium, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the achievements of the Department that I previously headed, where a great deal of work has been done. I am confident that work will be taken forward in the future.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I look forward to the debate on the strategic defence review. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that a specific issue is raised with the Secretary of State for Defence in the context of the new spirit of openness and open government to which we are committed? I received a reply from him on the 28th of this month about costs relating to the nuclear weapons establishment, in which he declined to come up with the information, on the basis that it was exempt on grounds of commercial confidentiality.
As the information was already available in Companies House, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the full costs associated with the nuclear weapons programme are as available to Members of Parliament in the House as they are to members of the public outside, so that a full and proper debate can take place here.

Mrs. Beckett: I certainly hear the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. All that I would say to my hon. Friend is that, if the material that he describes is available in Companies House, it is available to hon. Members as well as more widely to the public.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—in the modern vernacular, the enforcer—come to the House at 11 am tomorrow to make a statement on the ethical implications of the appointment of Lord Sainsbury to the Department of Trade and Industry, and how he will dispose of his £1.4 billion of supermarket shares, in view of the fact that his Tuscan tycoon friend the Paymaster General is trying to promote the sale of individual savings accounts through supermarkets, and that is germane to Lord Sainsbury' s responsibilities at the DTI?

Mrs. Beckett: There is no question of any need to make such a statement. There are no ethical implications in Lord Sainsbury' s appointment. He has already met the permanent secretary of the DTI to discuss the handling of his affairs. The ministerial code sets out roles on avoiding conflicts of interest, and they will of course be followed.

Mrs. Irene Adams: Early after our return, will the Leader of the House make way for a debate on the increasing number of deaths from drugs


overdoses in Strathclyde this year, especially the recent alarming reports that the deaths may have resulted from heroin taken from a missing batch imported into this country by Customs and Excise for use in tracking drug traffickers?

Mrs. Beckett: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern at the tragic events that she describes. I am not familiar with the report to which she draws attention, but the Ministers in the relevant Departments may be. If they are not, I shall ensure that it is drawn to their attention.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the right hon. Lady back to business questions. May we have a debate in the spillover period on departmental responsibilities in the Scottish Office? It will not have escaped her notice that the new Minister of State at the Scottish Office has a dramatically lighter work load than that of her predecessor. The reason seems to be that she has been given the "bash the Nats" portfolio.
I welcome the sign of panic from the Labour party. I welcome the recognition that they have been trounced in the polls in Scotland. I even welcome the ministerial changes that acknowledge that, but is there not an issue as to whether a part-time Minister should be given a full-time salary? Should not the Labour party pay for its own politicking rather than ask the public to do it?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. His question seems to be hypothesis piled on hypothesis. I have not studied, I fear, the detailed allocation of work in the Scottish Office, but we have excellent and hard-working Ministers there. I am confident that they will do an excellent job in handling the affairs of the Scottish Office. If that handling has some impact on the electoral fortunes of the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that it will be a job well done.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Looking ahead to business on our return, may I invite my right hon. Friend to make a statement following the resignation comments of Lord Richard, who has implied that it is unlikely that there will be any Lords reform other than setting up the wholly undemocratic, unelected council of life peers? As a proud moderniser and, along with her, diligent custodian of the Labour manifesto—[Interruption.]—new Labour manifesto—may I draw to her attention the commitment we gave to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to look into reform? In other words, we gave a commitment that the further reform would be Parliament-led, not Executive-led. Is it not time, first, that we had some specific proposals on the reform of the House of Lords, and, secondly, an indication that we will see this right through to the end, and to a democratically elected House?

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware that my hon. Friend is a diligent custodian of the Labour party's manifesto. I heard some, though perhaps not all, of the remarks of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Richard. I must admit that I did not read into them the implication that has been read in by my hon. Friend. The reform of the other place is an issue that will certainly be thoroughly debated in this House, and I am confident that, in the end, my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the outcome.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. Will she be able to

give us a debate both on the Government's annual report, and on the way in which the Government deal with the House? She will know that I pressed both her predecessor and the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has also lost his job, to ensure that we found out how long it is taking Ministers to reply to letters from Members of Parliament, but we have still not been given that information.
I know that the right hon. Lady's former Department, the DTI, had one of the best records under her control—indeed, one of the Ministers said that he was sacked because he had achieved too high a return rate for letters from Members of Parliament. Can we have an early debate on that issue, because it does concern all of us, and affects how we can do our job for our constituents?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time, although I can generously offer that the Opposition might find time, to debate the Government's annual report, but I shall certainly bear the request in mind.
As for the way in which the Government deal with the House and the length of time taken to reply to letters, all Ministers are anxious to get the turn-round as fast as possible. My predecessor will probably have told the hon. Gentleman that, in every Department under the Labour Government, the level of correspondence, not only from Members of Parliament, but from members of the public, and the overall work load has actually gone up like that—almost vertically. That is one of the things that is making it harder to achieve a fast turn-round. When a Government are reforming and modernising, as this Government are, it increases the work load.

Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new job, and I associate myself with the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). Will she look in the new parliamentary year for time for an early debate on health and safety? That would be particularly pertinent, as the first week back is European Safety Week; and the 20th, which is the second day back, is the 21st anniversary of the expansion of the role of the health and safety representative under the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974.
Such a debate would give us an opportunity to discuss the Health and Safety Executive report on the reporting of accidents in mines, which shows 52 per cent. under-reporting. That figure is contested by the mining unions, which argue that the level of under-reporting is far greater. An early debate would be much appreciated.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I must admit that I was not aware that it would be European Safety Week when we come back, and I am grateful to him for that information. At present, I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in that week, but I shall certainly bear his views in mind.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I too congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new appointment. May I return to the issue drawn to her attention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—that ministerial correspondence is being returned far too slowly?
I wrote to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 4 April, but I have still not had a substantive reply. If a difficult question were posed in the


correspondence I sent to the Minister, I could understand the need to look into it with some care, but the correspondence does not deal with a difficult matter. I invite the Leader of the House, as the protector of the interests of Back Benchers, to ensure that Ministers get their heads around their correspondence rather more quickly than they are currently doing.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks, but, without knowing the particular issue to which he refers, I cannot know what the reason is for the delay, although I agree that the delay is not usual. It would be a matter for regret in any Department, and I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister. However, all I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman is to repeat that the work load undertaken by Government Departments has, in most cases, quadrupled, and inevitably that has implications for the time it takes to deal with these matters.

Mr. Martin Salter: Does the Leader of the House share the concern of hon. Members, the Playpen Campaign, many parents and child care professionals about the apparently conflicting statements emanating from the Government in respect of child care regulation? On the one hand, the former Secretary of State for Social Security published the excellent Green Paper "Meeting the Childcare Challenge" which made the case for better regulation; but, on the other hand, we had the better regulation task force report, which made the case against better regulation.
Is there not an urgent need for these matters to be clarified? Is there not an urgent need for a debate in the House, so as to ensure that we have no more Louise Woodwards, Helen Staceys and Louise Sullivans?

Mrs. Beckett: All hon. Members on both sides of the House share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend that there should be no more tragedies, but I must admit that it does not appear to me that there is a conflict on the issue. Everyone is well aware of the importance of ensuring the safety and welfare of children; the issue is how best it can be secured. My hon. Friend will know that the consultation document was issued in March. The Government are studying the responses to that consultation, and will come forward with proposals in due course.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Now that we have the constitutional innovation of the Government Chief Whip being in the Cabinet, will there be a slot for the House to put oral questions to her?

Mrs. Beckett: That would certainly be a constitutional innovation. I must confess that I had not considered the matter, but I shall certainly do so.

Mr. John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that, on four occasions, I have raised the case of my constituent Ricky Reel in the House. He was the young man who, last year, following a racist attack, went missing and was found dead in the Thames a week later. There was a Police

Complaints Authority investigation into the investigation of his death; that has now come to a conclusion, and it is hoped that the report will be available during the recess.
May I ask that we have a debate on the PCA report as soon as possible after the recess; and that the report be made available, together with all the investigatory evidence? That will ensure that we can have a thorough debate on the case, which will help to restore the confidence of the family in the overall investigation, and to identify where possible what actually happened to Ricky.

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the great interest and concern that my hon. Friend has shown on behalf of his late constituent and his family. I cannot today give any indication as to whether it will be possible to find time for a debate, although it is open to him to seek an Adjournment debate. However, I shall certainly draw his remarks and his request for full publication to the attention of the relevant Department.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and ask the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an early statement to the House about the role and responsibilities of the new Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology? She will no doubt be aware that Lord Sainsbury has indicated that, because of his commercial interest, he does not intend to involve himself in matter relating to food technology, and that is welcome.
However, does the right hon. Lady recognise that, to name but a few, plants and soil, wood and metal, textile and garment manufacturing technology are also matters in which, because of Lord Sainsbury's commercial interest, he should in future have no ministerial involvement? An early assurance on that point would be greatly welcomed.

Mrs. Beckett: There will, of course, be opportunities to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Trade and Industry questions in the autumn. I can only repeat what I told the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood: there are rules to prevent conflicts of interest arising, and those rules will be followed.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What has become of the much heralded statement on the proposal for a trial in a third country—Holland—of the Lockerbie suspects? Since Madeleine Albright apparently agreed, the idea that American objections are stopping such a trial is somewhat question-marked. Is it because of the nine-year-old cynicism of the Crown Office in Edinburgh? To put it quite cynically, the last thing it wants is an actual trial to take place, because, if it did, the poverty of the evidence that the Crown Office claims to have would be exposed. Is that the real trouble?

Mrs. Beckett: No. I can assure my hon. Friend, who I know has taken a long and sustained interest in the matter, that the Government continue to give priority to seeing justice done through a criminal trial of those who are accused. There have been discussions about the possibility of trial in a third country. A great deal of work has been and continues to be done on the matter. Complex issues are involved. If and when they are resolved, we shall


make an announcement. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is not being held up by any concern of the kind to which he referred.

Mr. Derek Foster: May I, too, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post, and congratulate her on her outstanding performance in her previous job, which was widely appreciated on the Back Benches. [AN HON. MEMBER: "But not by business."] I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1589 on freedom of information, which is now signed by 185 colleagues from all parts of the House.
[That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's statement in 1996 that a Freedom of Information Act 'is not some isolated constitutional reform' but 'a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years'; congratulates the Government on its Freedom of Information White Paper; expresses concern at the prospect of any delay in bringing the measure forward; and calls on the Government to publish its draft Freedom of Information Bill before the end of the current session and to ensure that the actual Bill is introduced in the coming session.]
Can we have either a debate or a statement when we return in the autumn, so that we can remind ourselves that, before the election, we campaigned on the basis that a freedom of information Act was crucial to restore trust between Government and the people? I understand that that is a major theme of the Prime Minister's annual report.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks.
May I say to the Opposition Member—I did not identify the culprit—who said that my stint at the Department of Trade and Industry had not been welcomed by business, that he is wrong, and that I have had a number of nice letters from people in the business community, expressing their appreciation.
Of course I am aware of the great interest across the House in proposals for freedom of information legislation. As my right hon. Friend will know, I cannot promise at this stage an early debate or a statement when the House returns, but I shall bear his views in mind. He is entirely right to say that that pertains to trust, which is central to the Government's record and understanding. The annual report has been published today so that the Government can make it plain how they are delivering against the benchmarks we set ourselves before the general election. I understand why that is so objectionable to the Opposition, just as I understand why they never did it.

Mr. David Winnick: With regard to the House of Lords, has my right hon. Friend seen the comments of her former Cabinet colleague, Lord Richard, who said that an elected second Chamber would undoubtedly be troublesome for the Commons? As Leader of the House of Commons, will she bear in mind that there are differing views about that?
Although I am strongly in favour of getting rid of the hereditary peerages, as there is no justification for such people to remain in the House of Lords, it would be unacceptable, to some of us at least, that there should be an elected second Chamber, which would be a direct

challenge to the authority of this House. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the Government consider proposals for the House of Lords.

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view, as do the whole Government, that the continuation of the hereditary principle in another place, and of it being the basis of the right to vote there, is unacceptable. As he rightly says, there are differences of view about what should be done in place of the present situation. It would be unacceptable for those differences of view to be used as a further excuse to prolong the process of reform, as has happened when the issues have been debated in the past.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Leader of the House. Will she ensure that, before the debate on the strategic defence review in October, the Ministry of Defence publishes all its estimates on expenditure for this year which have not yet been published?
In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), will my right hon. Friend also ensure that the Ministry of Defence publishes all the costs of nuclear weapons, which under section 13 notices it has tried to hide by refusing to reveal them to the House? Without all the details of nuclear weapons research expenditure by the Ministry of Defence and by my right hon. Friend's former Department, a debate on defence expenditure and its implications would be rather unbalanced.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. He has made a number of requests for information that he considers should be available before the debate in the autumn. I shall draw those views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who I am sure will take them on board.

Mr. Christopher Chope: May I join my hon. Friends in calling for an early debate on the Government's annual report, and in particular the choice of illustrations and the words put into the mouths of the people illustrated? I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to page 17 of the annual report, which shows a lady pushing a supermarket trolley owned by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The lady is portrayed as expressing views about the Government. Does the Leader of the House think that perhaps she was expressing views about the quality of the supermarket produce?

Mrs. Beckett: I only glanced at the cover and the photographs in the report. My understanding from that glance was that a photographer went around, took photographs of people, and asked them to comment on the Government's record so far. It is therefore wrong to suggest that words were put into anyone's mouth. Those words were, I understand, their words.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: I join others who have congratulated my right hon. Friend on her new position. May I bring to her attention the issue of private Members' business? Even after just a couple of days, she will be aware that this year little private Members' business has completed all its legislative stages in the House, primarily because of the blocking manoeuvres of the Opposition.


Can the process be examined by the Modernisation Committee? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about the matter early in the new Session?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm that my predecessor told the House that she thought that the Modernisation Committee should consider the handling of private Members' business. I am happy to share that view. However, as the Committee has not yet done so, I fear that it is unlikely that we will be able to make a statement early in the new Session. I have taken on board my hon. Friend's comments. I share his view that it is always a sadness, and it is difficult for people outside to understand, when worthy and sensible pieces of legislation are lost as a result of maverick behaviour by Members of the Opposition.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: In the current climate of pay restraint, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about boardroom pay excesses, in particular the example set by some company directors, including none other than: the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as a director of Gartmore Shared Equity Trust, gave himself a 13 per cent. pay rise; the deputy leader of the Conservative party, whose board gave themselves a 40 per cent. pay increase; and the shadow Home Secretary, whose board of directors on Aggregate Industries plc gave themselves an astonishing 64 per cent. pay increase?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and powerful point on an issue to which he and others will no doubt wish to return in the new Session.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post. In line with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), may I ask the Leader of the House whether she will find time in the new Session for a debate on a Select Committee report published today on the welfare of former British child migrants? That excellent report outlines the appalling scandal that took place under the auspices of British Government agencies and the receiving agencies. Many children, supposedly in care, were subjected to appalling physical and sexual abuse.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am indeed aware of that report, and understand that it identifies some appalling treatment and practice. I share his view that it is an issue of importance. I cannot at present say whether or when we might find time for a debate, but I shall bear his views in mind.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position, after an outstanding stint at the Department of Trade and Industry. Is she aware that today the Association of Professional Political

Consultants described Derek Draper as "a rogue elephant" who brought the lobbying industry into disrepute, and that the chairman of the firm that formerly employed him, GPC Market Access, has written to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and to you, Madam Speaker, calling for a statutory register of lobbyists?
Given that the Prime Minister on Monday issued advice to civil servants on how they should deal with approaches from lobbyists, who are absolutely everywhere these days, is there not a compelling case for an early debate on the role of lobbyists when the House returns from the recess?

Mrs. Beckett: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I was not aware of the report to which he has just drawn attention, and I do not think it will be easy to find time for a debate early in the new Session or in the overspill. All I can say is that it is an issue to which various agencies of the House—perhaps even the Modernisation Committee—will have to pay attention at some point, as it seems that it is a developing role.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the Government's annual report—this colour supplement to end all colour supplements.? Is she aware that the first page states that it is "presented to Parliament"? Should it not be presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister in person? Should there not be a debate in which he answers to Parliament rather than to a small coterie in the rose garden at No. 10?
If this is to be an innovation—I am not opposed to it as an innovation—does the right hon. Lady agree that there should be an end-of-term debate in Parliament led by the Prime Minister, so that hon. Members from all parts of the House have the opportunity to probe, scrutinise and criticise, and to expose the fallacies within the document?

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the document reports on issues that have been thoroughly debated in the House—indeed, it makes a point about the scale and size of the Government's legislative programme—and that, in that sense, the Prime Minister has been available to discuss these issues on many occasions. I also remind him that the matter was laid before the House in answer to a parliamentary question. It is, of course, open to the Opposition to use some of their own time to debate the Government's annual report—they have no policies of their own, so they might as well debate ours.
I find it interesting that Opposition Members are so keen for the Prime Minister to lead a debate in the House. It was, after all, during the 18 years of the Conservatives' period in office that it became so rare that Prime Ministers took part in debates. I agree that it is important that the Prime Minister is available to the House to be questioned, and he is regularly, every week. Full advantage is taken of that.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

As amended (in the Committee)considered.

New clause 2

SOCIAL SECURITY, CHILD SUPPORT AND PENSIONS: CONSULTATION AND CO-ORDINATION

'.— (1) The Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister having responsibility for social security ("the Northern Ireland Minister") shall from time to time consult one another with a view to securing that, to the extent agreed between them, the legislation to which this section applies provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom.
(2) Without prejudice to section 21, the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury, and the Northern Ireland Minister with the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel, may make—

(a) arrangements for co-ordinating the operation of the legislation to which this section applies with a view to securing that, to the extent allowed for in the arrangements, it provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom, and for making any necessary financial adjustments; and
(b) reciprocal arrangements for co-ordinating the operation of so much of the legislation as operates differently in relation to Great Britain and in relation to Northern Ireland, and for making any necessary financial adjustments.
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations for giving effect to arrangements under subsection (2); and any such regulations may for the purposes of the arrangements provide—

(a) for adapting legislation (including subordinate legislation) for the time being in force in Great Britain;
(b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, for securing that acts, omissions and events having any effect for the purposes of the enactments in force in Northern Ireland have a corresponding effect in relation to Great Britain (but not so as to confer any double benefit); and
(c) for determining, in cases where rights accrue both in relation to Great Britain and in relation to Northern Ireland, which of those rights shall be available to the person concerned.
(4) The Northern Ireland Minister may make regulations for giving effect to arrangements under subsection (2); and any such regulations may for the purposes of the arrangements provide—

(a) for adapting legislation (including subordinate legislation) for the time being in force in Northern Ireland;
(b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, for securing that acts, omissions and events having any effect for the purposes of the enactments in force in Great Britain have a corresponding effect in relation to Northern Ireland (but not so as to confer any double benefit); and
(c) for determining, in cases where rights accrue both in relation to Northern Ireland and in relation to Great Britain, which of those rights shall be available to the person concerned.
(5) This section applies to—

(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;
(b) the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;

(c) the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991;
(d) the Disability (Grants) Act 1993;
(e) the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Pensions Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993;
(f) the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995;
(g) the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995;
(h) the Child Support Act 1995 and the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1995;
(i) the Social Security Act 1998 and the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.
(6) The following provisions (which are superseded by this section and section (Social security, child support and pensions: the Joint Authority)) shall cease to have effect—

(a) sections 177 and 178 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (co-ordination and reciprocity with Northern Ireland);
(b) sections 153 and 154 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (co-ordination and reciprocity with Great Britain);
(c) section 56 (2) to (4) of the Child Support Act 1991 (co-ordination with Northern Ireland);
(d) Article 49 (2) and (3) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (co-ordination with Great Britain).
(7) Section 189 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations and orders: general) shall apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (3) as it applied in relation to the power conferred by section 177 (4) of that Act.
(8) Section 165 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (regulations and orders: general) shall apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (4) as it applied in relation to the power conferred by section 153 (3) of that Act.'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 3—Social security, child support and pensions: the Joint Authority.
Government amendments Nos. 50, 51, 53, 55, 61, 66, 68 and 69.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments that we have to consider today are of two kinds. The first are technical ones, which we hope will improve the drafting of the Bill; the others are part of our response to our consultation with the parties, as well as to the views that have been expressed in the House. As we examine them this evening, I shall be able to give an explanation.
I apologise for the length and complexity of the first group of amendments and new clauses, but they are not as difficult as they might appear on the surface.
As the House knows, social security in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services, and therefore passes under the Belfast agreement to the devolved institutions. However, there is close parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and there are close links between the two social security systems. Reciprocal arrangements must exist to ensure,


for example, that entitlements to benefit can be transported by someone who moves house. There must also be arrangements for recognition of reciprocal agreements with other states, and there is much practical co-operation between the two systems—for example, the use of UK-wide computer systems.
There is also a question of finance. There are arrangements for topping up the Northern Ireland national insurance fund from its counterpart in Britain so that benefits in Northern Ireland can be paid at the same rates for the same contributions.
New clauses 2 and 3 provide for the Secretary of State for Social Security and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make arrangements for co-ordination. They do not require parity, but they provide a means by which the practical consequences of divergence can be managed. If the Assembly decides, for example, to move from parity between Britain and Northern Ireland, the cost would have to be met by the Assembly itself. Arrangements under the new clauses extend to child support and pensions, as well as to other social security benefits. In other words, if the Assembly wishes to vary benefits in Northern Ireland—presumably upwards—it will have to pay.
Government amendments Nos. 50 and 55 deal with another related point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in March that the Inland Revenue would assume responsibility for national insurance contributions from next April, taking over that function from the Department of Social Security in Great Britain and from the DHSS in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 55 makes them an excepted matter by adding them to schedule 2, but, of course, we hope that devolution occurs before April—perhaps some time in February or March. The amendments transfer responsibility for these matters to the Secretary of State for Social Security for those few months, or possibly weeks, so that responsibility for the administration of both national insurance funds would transfer to the Inland Revenue at exactly the sane time.
The amendments and new clauses are a sensible way of dealing with the difficulties arising from the transfer of responsibilities and are in line with the agreement. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. New clause 2 (1) refers to
the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister".
Is that a Northern Ireland Assembly Minister? If it means a Minister from the Assembly, why does the new clause not say that?
New clause 2(2) (a) refers to arrangements
for making any necessary financial adjustments".
Will the Minister explain in what circumstances it would be necessary to make any financial adjustments? Subsection (2)(b) contains the same phrase.
New clause 2(3)(a) refers to arrangements "for adapting legislation". What does that mean? When would it be necessary to adapt legislation if there is reciprocity

between the two systems? Subsection (3)(c) refers to cases where
rights accrue both in relation to Great Britain and in relation to Northern Ireland".
Will the Minister give examples of where rights would accrue? I concede that people should not be able to receive child benefit in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland at the same time. One cannot have rights to two benefits in different jurisdictions. Can the Minister give an example of the rights that would accrue in Great Britain or Northern Ireland that would require the Secretary of State to decide where the benefit—be it child benefit or any other—would be drawn?
New clause 2(6) proposes some repeals. What is the effect of those? Schedule 15 also proposes repeals. New clause 2 refers to section 177(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which provides that the joint authority will be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the head of the Northern Ireland Department. However, new clause 3 states that the joint authority will consist of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor is reputed to have interfered in other areas. Why has he been added to the joint authority?
What aspects of social security business can still be raised in the House? What opportunities will be open to hon. Members from throughout the United Kingdom to ask questions on social security matters in Northern Ireland when the Assembly is in place? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions. He will probably say that he will write to me. If he does say that, I shall understand.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his understanding. I shall try to answer some of his questions. He has taken a personal interest in these matters for some years. The reference in new clause 2 to a Northern Ireland Minister means a Minister from the Assembly.

Mr. Forsythe: Why is that not stated in the Bill? Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are Northern Ireland Ministers. Why does not the Bill say Northern Ireland Assembly Ministers?

Mr. Murphy: The Bill proposes the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and throughout the Bill it is clear that a Northern Ireland Minister is an Assembly Minister. Of course, if we were debating a social security measure, matters would be different, but in this context we are discussing a Northern Ireland Assembly Minister.
The financial adjustments refer to two matters, the first of which is the use in one country of benefit books that have been issued in another—for example, when someone is on holiday. The other matter relates to the topping up of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund. Adapting legislation allows account to be taken of, for example, waiting days in one country so that they can be counted towards benefit in another. The payment of double benefit would have to be avoided where someone has worked half his life in Great Britain and half in Northern Ireland; the details of who pays his retirement pension have to be worked out.
The repeals in the new clause are duplicated in the Bill and they must appear in the Bill in the right way. As the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) said, these


are important matters. It is appropriate to add my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the joint authority because of the financial implications.
The last point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim was about matters that can be raised here. Northern Ireland Members will have the same rights as other hon. Members to raise issues at Westminster. If I have not covered some of the more detailed aspects,I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a detailed reply.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The answer to my question should be brief. I should like the Minister to clarify the relationship between new clause 2 and new clause 3. New clause 2 seems to make it explicit that the extent of consultations is a matter for agreement. Therefore, disagreement is possible. However, it is closely linked to new clause 3, which deals with the joint authority. That will have three members, only one of whom will be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That means that the Member of the Assembly could be outvoted by the two other people on the joint authority. How does the Minister reconcile those two new clauses? They seem to be linked, but one provides for agreement between a United Kingdom Minister and a Northern Ireland Minister while the other suggests that the Northern Ireland Minister would be consistently outvoted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the sake of good order, I remind the House that on Report hon. Members may speak only once and the Minister twice in each debate on an amendment. We may get into difficulties if the debate becomes a question and answer session. However, as a specific question has been asked, the Minister may care to answer it.

Mr. Murphy: Some clarification is required, although it will not necessarily mean altering the new clauses. I shall write to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

SOCIAL SECURITY, CHILD SUPPORT AND PENSIONS: THE JOINT AUTHORITY

.— (1) The Joint Authority continued in being by section 177 (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992—

(a) shall consist of the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Minister having responsibility for social security and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and
(b) shall continue in being by the name of the Social Security, Child Support and Pensions Joint Authority for the purposes of the legislation to which section (Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination) applies.
(2) The responsibility of the Joint Authority shall include that of giving effect to arrangements under section (Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination)(2), with power—
(a) to make any necessary financial adjustments, including adjustments between the National Insurance Fund and the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund; and
(b) to discharge such other functions as may be provided under the arrangements.

(3) The Joint Authority shall continue—

(a) to be a body corporate; and
(b) to have an official seal which shall be officially and judicially noticed;
and the seal of the Authority may be authenticated by any member of, or the secretary to, the Authority, or by any person authorised by the Authority to act on behalf of the secretary.
(4) Any member of the Joint Authority shall be entitled, subject to and in accordance with any rules laid down by the Authority, to appoint a deputy to act for him at meetings of the Authority.
(5) The Documentary Evidence Act 1868 shall apply to the Joint Authority as if the Authority were included in the first column of the Schedule to that Act and—

(a) as if any member or the secretary, or any person authorised to act on behalf of the secretary, of the Authority were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule; and
(b) as if the regulations referred to in that Act included any document issued by the Authority.'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

EXAMINATIONS BY COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

'.— (1) For the purpose of enabling him to carry out examinations into, and report to Parliament on, the finances of the Assembly, the Comptroller and Auditor General—

(a) shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to all such documents in the custody or under the control of the Assembly or any other person audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, or of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, as he may reasonably require for that purpose, and
(b) shall be entitled to require from any person holding or accountable for any of those documents any assistance, information or explanation which he reasonably thinks necessary for that purpose.
(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—
(a) consult the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, and
(b) take into account any relevant work done or being done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland,
before he acts in reliance on subsection (1) or carries out an examination in respect of the Assembly under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).
(3) In section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983, after paragraph (c) of subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(ca) the Executive Committee established by section 16 (1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and any other person to whom sums are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland.".'.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Davis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 7, in clause 52, page 25, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

'(1) There shall continue to be a Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland.

(1A) The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland shall be an independent person appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Assembly; but for the purposes of this section


the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland in office immediately before this section comes into force shall be treated as having been so appointed.
(1B) A recommendation shall not be made to Her Majesty for the removal from office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland unless the Assembly so resolves and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly.
(1C) A person is independent for the purposes of subsection (1A) if he is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Executive Committee or of the Assembly in the exercise of his functions.'.
Amendment No. 8, in page 25, line 14, at end insert
'; and the accounts so audited shall be presented by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland to the Assembly and to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall thereupon lay them before the House of Commons.'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 25, line 16, at end insert
'enacted before section 5 of this Act comes into force or to any Act of the Assembly; but no Act of the Assembly shall have effect which—

(a) prejudices the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland conferred by Article 3 of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, or
(b) reduces the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland conferred by Part III of that Order or by subsection (2),
unless the provision in question or a draft of it has been laid before the House of Commons by the Secretary of State and approved by a resolution of that House.
(4) The expenses of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland (including those of the Northern Ireland Audit Office or such other Office as he may from time to time be empowered to maintain) shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by the Assembly.
(5) For each financial year of the Assembly after this section comes into force other than the first, the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland shall prepare, and submit to the Assembly (or, if a committee of the Assembly has been designated by the Assembly for the purpose, that committee), an estimate of the income and expenses of his office.
(6) If the estimate is submitted to a committee of the Assembly, the committee shall examine the estimate and lay it before the Assembly with such modifications as it thinks fit; but if the committee proposes to lay it with modifications, it shall first consult the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State and have regard to any advice which they may give.
(7) The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland may assist the Comptroller and Auditor General in reporting any matter to the House of Commons or in providing information or papers requested by the Committee of Public Accounts of the House of Commons.
(8) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 6 of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 are hereby repealed.'.
Government amendment No. 43.

Mr. Davis: On Second Reading, I commented on the unfortunate but, as I accepted at the time, necessary speed at which the Bill was going through the House. Hazards are associated with speedy Bills. In 1920, the Government of Northern Ireland Act created problems that lasted 50 years and ended in misery and the end of Stormont in the 1970s. I fear that, if we are not careful with some aspects of the Bill, we will create not necessarily the same problems—

Rev. Ian Paisley: The legislation that the right hon. Gentleman mentions is the Government of

Ireland Act 1920. I ask him please not to give all the blame to Ulster. He should remember that the southern part gave a great deal of trouble.

Mr. Davis: I am happy to be corrected, but I was not blaming Ulster: in part, I was placing the blame on the United Kingdom Government of the time and speaking about the problems that can be caused by speedy legislation on serious and complex constitutional issues.
Three matters need further thought. The first relates to guaranteeing the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. The second is the problem of long-term corruption in some aspects of Northern Ireland business and the Assembly's ability to deal with it. The third is the rights of the United Kingdom taxpayer as they are reflected—or, more accurately, not reflected—in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 aim to guarantee the independent appointment, tenure, funding and action of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. They underpin that independence by setting it in UK law, rather than in law that is susceptible to change by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Minister has been kind enough to write to me on the issue, and he indicated some sympathy with my argument. I elaborated on that on Second Reading, so I will not press it further. I say merely that that is the purpose of those amendments—all today's amendments are probing amendments.
5.30 pm
I move to a more worrying question: long-term corruption in Northern Ireland. We start from a bad base. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, my 1990 study of paramilitary racketeering showed that the Provisional IRA made about £5 million a year from a dozen different scams and rackets that it ran to fund its activities. These days, I suspect that the amount is a little lower because of Government action. Nevertheless, the joint actions of a number of paramilitary organisations probably raise several million pounds, and perhaps more. Many of those rackets focus on the public sector.
A large proportion of the money that is acquired illegally arises from corruption in one form or another in the public sector, be it public works, housing projects, welfare or other matters. That will be familiar to the Minister and, I should think, to almost every hon. Member in the Chamber.
The problem of corruption is compounded by the understandable wish of Ministers and civil servants in Northern Ireland not to let any social project that is aimed at dealing with sectarian problems fail because of lack of money. That means that there is a tendency to throw money at problems, which leads to waste and slackness, which we have seen too many times and which have been reported by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and by the Public Accounts Committee in the past few years.
Systematic waste, fraud and corruption have become a serious and permanent threat in Northern Ireland public expenditure. I am concerned that the Assembly will have difficulty in dealing with those problems because many have their origin, as I have said, in sectarian and paramilitary organisations. Some of those will be represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly by their


political arms, which may have power and executive responsibility for areas that are susceptible to fraud—housing, for example.
Corruption is a threat to any free and democratic system of government. It is a particularly virulent problem when the same party or same coalition stays in power for a long time; we have seen that in local government in our own country. It is also a problem in small communities, so we have a difficulty that is likely to be made worse, not better, by the solution that the Government have, understandably, come up with for Northern Ireland. The form of government that is proposed for Northern Ireland is not very good at dealing with corruption.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Corruption in the former Northern Ireland Parliament was minimal compared with what went on even in local government in England, but may I remind him that, when questions were asked in this House about social security payments to Mr. Gerry Adams, we were told that he was not getting such payments, even though the strange claim was made that he was an unemployed barman in Belfast? However, when he had a job to go to, we ultimately discovered, although it was denied in the House, that he was getting social security payments, so the problem affects the Administration here, who do not act on reports of auditors and accountants.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman helps to make my point. The difficulty is partly the activities of the paramilitaries, but it is also—I reiterate this point—the Assembly's structures, which make it difficult for the Assembly to deal with the problem. The old Northern Ireland Parliament—Stormont lid not have that structure. There are reasons for the new structure—I understand that—but it will have difficulties in dealing with this problem because political parties are still linked to paramilitaries, the structural legislature is poorly designed and there is already some corruption in place.
It would be easy to imagine that this is simply a financial problem, but it is not. Corruption in circumstances such as this has a corrosive impact on the communities that are supposed to be served by the Assembly, and on the political environment.
If hon. Members want an example of that, they can look back simply to post-prohibition American racketeering days and what happened to city and state government as a result of that racketeering. I worry much more about the impact on the politics and the communities of Northern Ireland than about the money itself. That is one reason why I think that this is vital.

Mr. Roy Beggs: It has been suggested that at least £5 million has been misappropriated in Northern Ireland by the activities of paramilitaries. Without close scrutiny by the CAG, who is answerable to this House, that sum may be quadrupled, especially if we end up with a head of a Department and a Minister who represent paramilitary groups?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman restates in starker language the point that I was making. That is why subsection (7) in my amendment No. 9 would allow the Northern Ireland CAG to assist the United Kingdom CAG in reporting matters to the Public Accounts Committee.
This is not full House of Commons scrutiny—we should not misunderstand this—but it would act as a reserve parachute for Northern Ireland scrutiny if fraud were to become a more serious problem. The Minister is setting up a constitutional arrangement that is supposed to last for generations, one presumes, and we must at least do what we can to ensure that that awful circumstance does not arise.
The last issue that I want to take up is that of the accountability of the House of Commons for the £3 billion or so of UK taxes that subsidise Northern Ireland expenditure. This is the primary reason for new clause 1 and amendment No. 6. I do not expect to persuade the Minister today of this issue, but it is of fundamental constitutional importance, so I am obliged to raise it.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting many figures and raising serious matters that need consideration by the House. I am not asking this in any way other than constructively, but will he give us some idea of where his evidence is for the fraud that he speaks about in Northern Ireland? On what is he basing it?

Mr. Davis: There are two sets of data. I referred at the beginning of my speech—if the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully he would have heard me say this, although I am surprised, given his previous work on the Northern Ireland Committee, that he was not aware of it—to a survey that I conducted in 1990 on paramilitary racketeering. At the time, the Northern Ireland Office handed it out to the press as a guide to what went on. The Public Accounts Committee published a number of reports about waste in Northern Ireland—I could cite half a dozen; I will write to him if he wishes to know the exact number—that showed weaknesses in Northern Ireland, some of which will create opportunities for fraud, which is what we are trying to eradicate.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the right hon. Member aware that there have been questions on this matter in the House and that three times more disability living allowance is awarded in some constituencies than in others, which suggests that something strange is going on?

Mr. Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. He may be aware that I took the Public Accounts Committee to Northern Ireland and that we met at Stormont to consider that very issue. Disability living allowance claims in Northern Ireland are higher than one could reasonably expect in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I am aware of the problem that he raises.
I now turn to a constitutional issue. The accountability for money spent rests finally with the Parliament that raises the taxes to finance that expenditure. It underpins the most basic of Parliament's functions. It is not a new argument. The provision of supply has been behind Parliament's functions for a long time. Indeed, that argument lay behind the "no taxation without representation" issue that led to the war with the American colonies, so it has some hundreds of years' provenance.
Nearly 40 per cent.—the exact figure is 39 per cent.—of Northern Ireland expenditure is met by the rest of the United Kingdom and not from local taxation. It is obvious


that it demands severe United Kingdom scrutiny. At this point we run into what I shall call the Scottish dimension. I do not blame the Minister, as I understand entirely where it comes from.
The same argument was applied less dramatically in the Scotland Bill and the Government found themselves in a difficult political position. If they had allowed United Kingdom scrutiny of Scottish expenditure, they would have been outflanked by the Scottish National party for giving in to the English, or some such other slogan, so the Government had to invent a constitutional fiction. They raised a constitutional non sequitur to the level of an argument when they proposed that a Parliament or Assembly that was responsible for primary legislation should scrutinise its own expenditure and that no one else should do so. That is nonsense. Those who raise taxes are accountable for the expenditure. We can delegate power, but we cannot delegate accountability. We are held accountable by the people who elect us, from whom we raise taxes.
The ludicrous nature of the Government's position is shown by amendment No. 43, which states:
The Treasury may require the Northern Ireland Ministers and departments to provide, within such period as the Treasury may specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may specify.
In other words, the Executive, through the Treasury, want access to information that the House is being denied. They will not agree funding for Northern Ireland without the right to that information, but the House will be required to approve the funding without access to the information, which demonstrates the paradox of the Government's argument. Yet again, a large sum of taxpayers' money—£3 billion—is being spent outside the control and scrutiny of the House, which is completely against the traditions of the House.

Mr. William Ross: I have considerable sympathy with the new clause because I believe that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has put before the House serious issues that should concern us all. As he pointed out, the House is ultimately responsible not only for raising revenue, but for its expenditure and for protecting public finances and the public purse.
In my experience, the Northern Ireland audit is highly efficient. Every time I have approached the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, he has been extremely helpful. If the Treasury can second-guess his figures, that information should also be available to the House. There are times when right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise matters of concern to our constituents and to Northern Ireland generally. I would not wish to be inhibited in raising those matters in future by a lack of information.
We all know it is often years before allegations of fraud are investigated and conclusions are reached. However, that is no excuse for giving up our control of the finances of any part of the United Kingdom and I am certainly happy to support what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said.
Amendment No. 43, which the right hon. Gentleman read out, refers to the Treasury. I would have been much happier with it had it referred to the Comptroller and

Auditor-General as that would have brought it within the ambit of this place. It is not acceptable to me or to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should be excluded from access to such information.
I believe that the new clause sets the direction in which the Bill should go. I hope that the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden will be given favourable consideration by the Government because of the right hon. Gentleman's long experience in these matters. It is not a light matter or even a party political matter; it is a House of Commons, Government matter and we are concerned about the expenditure of UK taxpayers' money for which we are ultimately responsible.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Obviously, we raised this issue on Second Reading and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) is right to raise it again. It is extremely important, not just to taxpayers but to democrats throughout the United Kingdom, that if we are to have a devolved system of Administration in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there should be proper scrutiny of public funds and public expenditure. No one disagrees with that principle.
We should all be aware that the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland has done, is doing, and I am sure will do an excellent job. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the independence of that office should be enshrined in statute and we should be able to reach an accommodation between us as to the wording necessary to achieve that. It would be very useful if the right hon. Gentleman and I were to get together with the appropriate officials during August or September to look at this so that the House of Lords can consider any amendments.
The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would not press his amendments and I am grateful for that. I am also grateful to him for drawing to my and the House's attention the provisions of the Scotland Bill that place particular emphasis on the independent status of the auditor in Scotland, although we must remember that the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland has been in place for some time now.
I am not so convinced about systemic corruption in the Northern Ireland Administration—if that is the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used, I am not sure whether it is accurate. There have been examples of corruption in public bodies in England, Wales and Scotland. Of course all hon. Members would condemn that, but I do not think that there is a particular difference in respect of Northern Ireland and I hope that there will not be one in future.

Mr. David Davis: I thank the Minister for his constructive approach and I shall certainly not press the amendments. First, I am happy to take up the Minister's offer and talk to him in detail about guaranteeing the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. Secondly, he should not take what I said about systemic corruption as a criticism of the vast majority of civil servants or politicians who work in Northern Ireland. However, the assault by paramilitary organisations in particular, as has happened in the past, will tend to corrupt. The Minister will be aware that such organisations have raised large sums of money. I would


not like what I said to be taken as a criticism of civil servants and politicians, but rather as a concern about the conditions under which they will have to work in future.

Mr. Murphy: I understand the difference between the right hon. Gentleman's two points. He also raised the question of an Opposition/Government. In this place, the Chairman of the PAC is always a member of the Opposition; there is a great deal of sense in that. In Northern Ireland, the situation is not quite the same. Is there an Opposition? Is there a Government? Parties are entitled to membership of the Executive and to hold ministerial posts based on the strength of their election success and the number of seats that, consequently, they hold.
There is not as obvious a distinction as there is in our system in Westminster. Indeed, it could be said that parties around the table in the Executive would be politically very much opposed to each other. In some ways, that could be reflected in a Public Accounts Committee in the Assembly. We shall certainly be tabling an amendment in the other place that will lay on the Assembly a statutory requirement for a PAC, with all the necessary controls that such a Committee could exercise.
The problem that the Government have with new clause 1 and amendment No. 8 boils down to the question of devolution and accountability. An Assembly in Belfast is of course elected by the people, so the Government of Northern Ireland and their expenditure should be scrutinised by the legislature of Northern Ireland through its own PAC. That is the best way, and it will certainly occur in Scotland. When we meet to discuss these issues, we may find that, on some occasions—I can think of one—we will be able to lay the accounts of the Northern Ireland Assembly before the House of Commons. The accounts would, after all, be a public document. We would have to do so in such a way that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were treated equally; so that in no way would devolution in Northern Ireland be weaker, different or less significant than it is in Scotland or in Wales.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is surely forgetting something. He drew attention to the laudable practice in the House of the Chairman of the PAC always being a member of the Opposition. In the concept proposed for Northern Ireland, there will not be an Opposition. The Minister must face that problem. He should pay careful attention to what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is saying, because we are talking about where the ultimate responsibility lies; and he should know what is going on.

Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; what will happen in Northern Ireland will be fundamentally different from what will occur in Edinburgh where there will be a Government and an Opposition in the sense that he and I know. In the next few weeks and months, we must reflect on how best a PAC can operate in Belfast, who will chair it and what its rules and procedures will be.

Mr. Davis: The Minister drew comparisons with the bodies in Scotland and Wales, yet their treatment is very different. I for one do not see the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland as a precedent for either of them, just as Wales is not a precedent for Scotland or vice versa. It is much more important that we get the system in

Northern Ireland right than to worry about an inappropriate consistency. If Northern Ireland is consistent with one of the examples that he picked, it would be inconsistent with the other.

Mr. Murphy: There is a big difference between Wales and Scotland because the Scottish Parliament is a legislative body—as will be the body in Belfast. The similarities between the situations in Northern Ireland and Scotland are greater than those between Northern Ireland and Wales. It is clearly important to have some comparability. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it does not have to be exact; it has to fit the circumstances—but in such a way that it in no sense demeans the Belfast Assembly. The Assembly must have its own controls and methods of scrutiny that are not in any way derived from the House of Commons. Our job is, obviously, to deal with the United Kingdom Government.
I take the point about subvention. If the people of England, Scotland and Wales have to give extra money to Northern Ireland, that is clearly a matter of interest to the House of Commons, just as it is when they have to give money to Scotland or Wales. The new clause and the amendments would not achieve what I think the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden wants to achieve. Nor would they ensure that, on one hand, proper scrutiny, and on the other, the proper accountability of the Assembly and the Executive which is in everyone's interest.
To sum up, first, we can look very favourably on the idea of putting into legislation some sensible independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Secondly, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and I ought to meet in order to deal with some of the matters to which he referred. Thirdly, when the Bill goes to the other place, amendments will certainly be tabled, including one to establish a PAC for Northern Ireland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Davis: In view of the Minister's very constructive reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

TRANSFERRED, EXCEPTED AND RESERVED MATTERS

Mr. William Thompson: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
the Government of Ireland" means the Government of the Republic of Ireland, as defined in section 1 of the Ireland Act 1949.'.
In Committee, an amendment was tabled so that, in clause 1(2), the Bill would refer to the Government of the Republic of Ireland instead of the Government of Ireland. That was resisted by the Government. The Minister first described the importance of terminology in Northern Ireland, and then explained that the British Government had agreed to the Irish Government's wish to be termed "the Government of Ireland" in British legislation.
I understand that the Minister and the Government believe that they are entitled to make such a change because of the use of the word "may" in the Ireland Act 1949. Clearly, there are those of us who doubt that that is possible under the Act. There needs to be clarification of


the matter. Those of us who are Unionists are very concerned when we see in United Kingdom legislation for the first time the term "the Government of Ireland". It makes us rather suspicious of what is going on.
I have tabled the amendment for clarity. Accepting it would confirm that "the Government of Ireland" means "the Government of the Republic of Ireland", as defined in section 1 of the Ireland Act 1949. That would make clear that references to the Government of Ireland are to 26 and not 32 counties, which would give some solace to those of us who are Unionists.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I support my hon. Friend's amendment. By far the best way for the Government to deal with the matter would have been to maintain the conventions and precedents of the House and continue to refer to "the Government of the Republic of Ireland" as such. It is an outrage that the Government of the Irish Republic should lay claim to the territory of Northern Ireland in their title.
Although we were told that the Belfast agreement was designed to remove the territorial claim over Northern Ireland, the title that the Government of the Republic have adopted for themselves, and which they require to be used in British legislation, is in itself a territorial claim. The term "the Government of Ireland" clearly suggests that that Government govern the whole of the island, not just part of it. That is the distinction between "the Government of the Republic of Ireland" and "the Government of Ireland" as a whole.
The Minister has therefore allowed the Government of the Republic of Ireland to lay claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom. If the amendment is not acceptable, the Minister must go back and consider the whole issue of the naming of the Dublin Government, so that the title used clearly shows that they are responsible only for the 26 counties in the Irish Republic.

6 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley: I support my colleagues on this issue. It amazed me that the Minister admitted that during the talks the Irish Republic's representatives were prepared for the first time to use the proper title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not the title that the Republic uses in its legislation.
I would have thought that, if the Minister was so keen to achieve a balance, he would say to the Republic, "If you want us to use your title in our legislation, you must reciprocate." The trouble is that throughout the Bill the Government have leaned over backwards to accommodate the claims and wishes of the Irish Republic. We see that with the abolition of the 1920 Act, despite the fact that the referendum outcome in the south does not come into operation with regard to the territorial claim until the Republic is satisfied that everything is going according to its wishes. The Minister should have insisted.
I must take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—that the present terminology represents an effort by the Government of the Irish Republic to insist on their territorial claim. The proper name of the south, chosen by itself, is the Republic of Ireland, which defines the 26 counties. Why, when the Republic is supposed to have

given up its claim, is the Minister insisting on recognising that claim by putting the title "the Government of Ireland" into the Bill?

Mr. Grieve: There appears to be some force to the amendment, for reasons that I shall explain. I fully understand the Government's position that in the course of the negotiations it was agreed—it was a matter of mutual respect between two sovereign states—that the descriptions used should be those by which each state wished to be known. In one case that description was "the Government of Ireland" and I understand that there is reciprocity in relation to the United Kingdom.
Everybody will know that both those descriptions are capable of interpretation, and that in reality the interpretation of the reference to "the Government of Ireland" is indeed the Government of the Republic of Ireland—as, I suspect, it is defined in section 1 of the Ireland Act 1949. Whether that fact appeared at this point in the Bill or simply in the interpretation clause, it would clear up an ambiguity that seems to have troubled Unionist Members while, I respectfully suggest, in no way derogating from the manner in which, in the text of the agreement and the Bill, proper reference is made to the Government of Ireland.

Mr. Paul Murphy: We went over the ground at some length in Committee, and I do not want to burden the House with a long debate on the issue now. However, the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) attribute much more power to me than I possess; it is not right to suggest that the territorial claim on the north is a consequence of my actions.
Certainly the terms of the agreement are reproduced in the Bill, and during the negotiations leading up to that agreement a great deal of what I consider to be improvement took place in the way in which we describe the countries from which we each come. The Irish prefer the term "the Government of Ireland" and we, of course, prefer our right name—"the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
As I told the House some days ago, that was the first time that that had happened, and I think that it was a significant milestone in the way in which we deal with the nomenclature. It is not right to suggest that the terminology represents a territorial claim; it certainly does not. All it represents is a reasonable and sensible compromise—an agreement arrived at in the talks, put into the agreement and now reproduced in the Bill.
If we used anything other than those two terms—"the Government of Ireland" and "the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"—we would be going against the spirit of the agreement. I cannot accept the amendment because I believe that progress was made on the subject in the talks, so I ask the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) to withdraw it.

Mr. Thompson: The Minister has spoken a lot about what went on before the agreement was signed. He has also said that it was agreed that the words "the Government of Ireland" should be used, and those words appear on the face of the Bill. The problem is that those of us who are Unionists are not happy with the use of that term. If "the Government of Ireland" means the


Government of the Republic of Ireland, there seems no reason why the Government cannot use that term, at least when explaining what the words "the Government of Ireland" mean.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not strange that the statement that the Minister has now made was not announced at the talks while they were going on? It was not announced that the two Governments had decided to call each other by those names. If that was such an important matter and there was a great feeling of unanimity, hatchets had been buried and bows and arrows put away, they should have announced it. The people at the talks never heard about it. When we attended the talks the matter was never mentioned, and I am told by those who were in the talks to the end that it was never mentioned.

Mr. Thompson: Those of us who were present for the Committee stage will realise that many of the amendments that were accepted came from the Government, while few if any amendments have been accepted from the Opposition. It should be remembered that those of us who sit on this side of the House represent the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland.[Interruption.]

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Am I to understand that, notwithstanding the points that the Minister has made and the fact that the agreement seems to have been quite clear, the term is causing a serious and genuine problem and concern among Unionists in Northern Ireland, and that there is some feeling that the ground has shifted a bit because of the use of that terminology instead of the terminology that would more conventionally be used by people in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Thompson: I heard the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) suggesting that we do not represent the majority of the people of Northern Ireland—but 13 Unionist Members of Parliament out of 18 seems to me to be a fair majority.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I noticed during our previous debate that the hon. Gentleman had great difficulty in accepting the normal interpretation of mathematics: 71 per cent. is the great majority, not the 29 per cent. that he now represents. May I ask him further to correct his suggestion that the terminology to which he objects and to which his amendment relates was not mentioned in the document but was in some way kept secret? The agreement document states, in bold, clear print, that the agreement is
between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the document was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and that the people of Northern Ireland voted to support it?

Mr. Thompson: I am not disputing the words in the agreement. We are discussing what the words actually mean—that is the issue. The Government say that, in the Bill, the Government of Ireland means the Government of the Republic of Ireland—at least, I think that is what they are saying. However, I suspect that when the hon.

Gentleman refers to the Government of Ireland, he does not mean the Government of the Republic of Ireland as we understand it—the 26 counties.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I want to put it on the record of the House of Commons that, in this debate and in the Bill, the Government of Ireland means the Government of the Republic of Ireland—of course it means that. The Bill replicates the words of the agreement, so it does not need to be changed.

Mr. Thompson: The Minister has made the position very clear, and it is good to have it on the record, although I suspect that it will not make the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) very happy, as he means something different by the phrase. There is no doubt that the words of the agreement are in the Bill, but we want clarification; we want what the Minister said to be confirmed. Why cannot the Government accept the amendment?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 257.

Division No. 354]
[6.11 pm


AYES


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Shaw, Jonathan


Forsythe, Clifford
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Thompson, William


Hunter, Andrew



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Roy Beggs.


Ross, William (E Lond'y)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Casale, Roger


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Chaytor, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin, John
Clapham, Michael


Baker, Norman
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ballard, Jackie
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Battle, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Colman, Tony


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Connarty, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Cooper, Yvette


Benton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Corston, Ms Jean


Best, Harold
Cotter, Brian


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Crausby, David


Boateng, Paul
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Borrow, David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Browne, Desmond
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Buck, Ms Karen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burden, Richard
Denham, John


Burgon, Colin
Dismore, Andrew


Burnett, John
Dobbin, Jim






Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
McCabe, Steve


Doran, Frank
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Drew, David
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McDonnell, John


Efford, Clive
McFall, John


Ennis, Jeff
McGrady, Eddie


Etherington, Bill
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McIsaac, Shona


Fearn, Ronnie
McNamara, Kevin


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McWalter, Tony


Fisher, Mark
McWilliam, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mallaber, Judy


Flynn, Paul
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Foulkes, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gibson, Dr Ian
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Mitchell, Austin


Goggins, Paul
Moffatt, Laura


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Gorrie, Donald
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mudie, George


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mullin, Chris


Hancock, Mike
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Olner, Bill


Heppell, John
Öpik, Lembit


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pendry, Tom


Hoey, Kate
Perham, Ms Linda


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L


Hopkins, Kelvin
Plaskitt, James


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pollard, Kerry


Howells, Dr Kim
Pond, Chris


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Pound, Stephen


Hurst, Alan
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Rammell, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Jenkins, Brian
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)



Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Rooker, Jeff



Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Salter, Martin


Keetch, Paul
Sarwar, Mohammad


Kemp, Fraser
Savidge, Malcolm


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Sawford, Phil


Kingham, Ms Tess
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, Jonathan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lepper, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Leslie, Christopher
Skinner, Dennis


Linton, Martin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive





Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Vaz, Keith


Stevenson, George
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms Claire


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wills, Michael


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winnick, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wood, Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Wyatt, Derek


Todd, Mark



Tonge, Dr Jenny
Tellers for the Noes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Keith Hill.


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'or with Community law'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12, 20 to 22, 44 to 49, 59 and 60.

Mr. Murphy: These are technical amendments, necessary to ensure that certain aspects of the Bill relating to the compatibility of Assembly legislation and ministerial actions with convention rights and community law are dealt with properly, and to ensure that the provisions dealing with religious and political discrimination apply in all the circumstances that they should. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Öpik: I wish to make one point regarding amendment No. 22. I would have been pleased to see a wider definition of equal treatment in that amendment. This matter has been discussed earlier, and I will not rehearse the arguments. However, I hope that the Minister will realise that there is potential on that basis.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
'() it is incompatible with Community law.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 11

STAGES OF BILLS

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 16, at end insert—
'() Standing orders may, in relation to different types of Bill, modify provisions made in pursuance of subsection (1).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Mr. Murphy: Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 would amend clause 11. Clause 11(2) merely provides that the


Standing Orders of the Assembly may include provision for the setting up of a Committee to examine measures or proposals for legislation for their conformity with equality requirements. This is one of the most important safeguards in the agreement, designed to develop an atmosphere of confidence and trust.
Consultation with parties has revealed a feeling that the existing text of the Bill is not sufficiently clear, providing only that Standing Orders may include provision of the Committee. The effect of the amendments is that the Standing Orders must include provision for establishing the Committee, and may also include provision for the details of a Bill to be considered by the Committee in circumstances specified by the order. That will permit paragraphs 12 and 13 of strand 1 of the agreement to be reflected. The Assembly will not be obliged to put every Bill to such a Committee—that is not part of the agreement. I believe that the amendments give effect more precisely to the agreement itself, and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 5, line 17, leave out from 'orders' to 'such' in line 18 and insert—
'(a) shall include provision for establishing'.

No. 15, in page 5, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert
'and
(b) may include provision for the details of a Bill to be considered by the committee in such circumstances as may be specified in the orders.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 14

FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 11, leave out 'The Assembly shall' and insert
'Each Assembly shall, within such period beginning with its first meeting as is specified in standing orders,'.
The amendment provides that there should be a new election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister after every election, and that that election shall take place within a period specified in the Standing Orders. Clearly, that is a sensible arrangement and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Robinson: It occurs to me that the Minister might like to clarify whether there is any mechanism for disposing of First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers. There is none in the Bill, except by their own resignation—which, apparently, has to be forced. Will the Minister consider whether it might be appropriate to have such a mechanism?

Mr. Murphy: I think that the term "disposal" might be a little extreme under the circumstances, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. They can be excluded under clause 23.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 7, line 33, after second 'office' insert
'which, together with the code of conduct to which it refers, is'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 56.

Mr. Murphy: These are minor amendments, proposed for convenience's sake. They have the effect of setting out the code of conduct from annexe a to strand 1 of the Belfast agreement in schedule 5 of the Bill. The provision was lifted word for word from the agreement and placed in the Bill. It will be more convenient for those who wish to look at the legislation. It should avoid any possible confusion between the code of conduct that was specifically agreed in the talks and any code of conduct that applies to Westminster Ministers. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The amendment is linked to Government amendment No. 16. The code of conduct is part of the pledge. A breach of the pledge could lead to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister losing their places, but there is no other mechanism if they have lost the confidence of the Assembly on a political matter. They can be removed only if they breach their pledge of office or are involved in or support terrorism.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 6, leave out 'or under'.
The amendment is entirely technical. Clause 15 deals with the allocation of ministerial posts by the d'Hondt formula. Subsection (14), as drafted, provides that, if a party is excluded and its period of exclusion has not come to an end,
the party shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (4) to (9) as applied by or under subsection (13).
On reflection, we believe that the words "or under" are redundant, and the amendment will delete them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 9, at end insert
'or an officer nominated by him for the purposes of this section'.
The amendment concerns the powers of political parties to nominate people to ministerial posts that fall to the party under the d'Hondt formula. It clears up what we believe is an anomaly. Clause 15 provides for the d'Hondt formula to determine how many posts each party is entitled to. The political party that gains the highest figure when the formula is run can then choose a ministerial post. Clause 15 gives the nominating officers—usually, but not necessarily, the leaders—of political parties the power to select a ministerial office and nominate a person to hold it who is a member of the party and, of course, of the Assembly.
Subsection (15) enables the nominating officer of a non-registered political party to delegate his functions under the clause, but it does not enable the nominating officer of a registered party to do the same. There seems to be no good reason for the distinction, and I would expect that most Northern Ireland parties will want to take


advantage of the registration scheme when it is finally introduced. The amendment removes the anomaly by giving the nominating officers of registered political parties the same power to delegate their functions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

COMMUNITY LAW AND CONVENTION RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 9, line 37, after 'act', insert—
'(a)".
No. 21, in page 9, line 37, leave out 'or' and insert—
'(b) is incompatible'.
No. 22, in page 9, line 38, at end insert—
', or
(c) discriminates, or aids or incites any person to discriminate, against a person or class of person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion.'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]

Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 9, line 39, leave out ', 21 and' and insert 'to'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 3, in clause 22, page 11, line 18, leave out from 'equal' to end of line 20 and insert
'consideration shall be given to both the number of Ministers and the number of Chairmanships allocated to the respective parties in allocating the already remaining Chairmanships in an equitable manner.'.
Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

Mr. Murphy: I believe that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) may want to speak to amendment No. 3, which is closely related to the other amendments. It may be convenient for the House to listen to his points before I wind up.

Mr. Öpik: Ministers seem to have discounted the importance of the points that I made on this matter in Committee. In simple terms, amendment No. 3 would ensure that, in the event of a tie between two parties in the allocation of chairmanships, the number already allocated plus the number of Ministers already appointed would be taken into consideration. The Bill takes account only of the number of chairmanships.
I do not want to go too far into the algebra, for fear of being labelled an anorak, but I can assure the House that the amendment fits exactly into the spirit of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that there is a fair and equitable distribution, in a proportional fashion, of the positions of office in the Assembly.
There is a danger that a large party could easily get an additional chairmanship when a small party has none, but with the smallest of changes that small party could benefit by picking up one chairmanship. If the amendment were made, there would be a genuine opportunity for small parties to increase the likelihood of having a chairmanship in the Assembly.
We must remember that, although the larger parties picked up the lion's share of the vote, smaller parties, such as the Alliance party and others, did very well in terms of the absolute number of people who chose to support them. It would be sensible and popular to make the modification that I have suggested. I hope that the Minister will give us a rather more encouraging response this time. I am looking for an assurance that he will entertain the possibility of revisiting the matter over the summer.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) wants to see that which is fair and equitable, and he wants to be the one to decide what is fair and equitable. He does so in a manner that just happens to be to the advantage of his sister party in Northern Ireland. The reality is that, if a party cannot get enough seats in the Assembly, it cannot expect chairmanships. That is what democracy is all about.
Government amendment No. 25 concerns the allocation of Committee places. I cannot recall our having considered that matter at all. It has been thrown in at the last moment. I wonder why.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: In fact, we discussed the matter on an amendment that we tabled in Committee, where it was amendment No. 14. I thank the Minister and his team for accepting it more or less verbatim.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
Government amendment No. 25 says that a nominating officer must prefer a Committee on which his party does not have a ministerial post. Is that absolutely necessary when we move from the chairmanships to the deputy chairmanships?
In many cases, who is the Chairman or Vice-Chairman will depend largely on the person's skills, so the nominating officer's flexibility will be curtailed. I see the necessity for the provision in relation to chairmanships, as one wants more objective scrutiny of the Minister's actions, but in the case of deputy chairmanships, I would have thought that the Government could have been more relaxed.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I have some sympathy with amendment No. 3. I would have had more sympathy with it if the same pattern were applied here. In 1982 and 1983, we were told that Northern Ireland parties had four places on Select Committees, and this year we have been cut down because the Government party demanded a majority of two in every Committee, and our Liberal Democrat friends decided that they also wanted places. The harsh reality is as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) described it. Where a party has members, it gets places. My sympathy lies with the amendment, however. The concept of cross-community partnership should run right through the process, and it is strange that a Government who have gone down that road are withstanding the amendment.
Those who berated us in the 1975 constitutional convention for being obscurantists fighting a rearguard action who were not prepared to give places to others of different viewpoints would be surprised to find that


committees then would have been 50:50, with the chairmanships divided equally between the majority group and the minority group. We made that decision because we could not see that any party would ever win control under proportional representation. If the Government want to keep to the spirit of the agreement, they should not treat the amendment as cherry picking, but they have perhaps done some raspberry picking of their own.

Mr. Öpik: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that amendment No. 3 applies also to the larger parties. If there is a tie between two large parties, they could benefit from the proportional process. It was not intended simply to help small parties, but to provide an equitable solution in the event of a tie.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept that. That is why I sympathise with the amendment. However, the tragedy is that the House of Commons, the mother of Parliaments, has not always followed its own democratic procedures.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I fear that I must give the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) the same answer that I gave in Committee. The spirit of the agreement is proportionality, and there is an opportunity in the Assembly for smaller parties to exercise responsibility in the large number of chairmanships and deputy chairmanships that will be meaningful jobs there. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to Ministers, but if there is a tie, the only real answer is to re-run the d'Hondt system. The number of first preference votes for each party would then be reconsidered, instead of the number of seats that it had won in the Assembly. That is a fairer and more proportional system for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Öpik: I have visions of algebra. The amendment refers to chairmanships, and I fear that the Minister slightly misunderstands our intent. The amendment is not intended to create an unfair skew towards small parties, but to increase proportionality in the allocation of positions. I must emphasise that, because the assumption has been made a few times that the amendment is designed to favour small parties. I intend only that distribution should truly be fair.

Mr. Murphy: My understanding was that the amendment would favour smaller parties. That is why we do not favour it, but we may be able to discuss the point, and, when the Bill reaches the other place, perhaps it could be more clearly made. For tonight, however, we must reject it.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 provide that Northern Ireland Ministers, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, should not also be Chairmen or Deputy Chairman of Committees. That is sensible. Although the agreement is silent on the matter, there is no case for overlap. The amendments also deal with whether Committee Chairmen and Deputy Chairman should come from the same party as the Minister whose Department the Committee is advising and assisting. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has referred to the Opposition amendment that would have prevented any overlap, and we agree with the sentiments of that amendment. As I said in Committee, there may be

cases in which overlap is impossible to avoid, and that may answer the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about flexibility.
Amendment No. 25 refers to the nominating officer of a party preferring
a committee in which he does not have a party interest to one in which he does.
That is not as rigid as saying that he cannot be on one in which he has an interest, but that he should prefer the other. It is sensible to have a spread, and to try to avoid overlap.
Amendment No. 23 is consequential. Clause 19 defines "Minister", for the purposes of clauses 19, 20, 21 and 23, as meaning
the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister.
Government amendments to clause 22 include references to Ministers that need to be construed in the same way, and the amendment extends the definition to cover clause 22.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 10, line 18, at end insert
'and may make provision having retrospective effect'.
The amendment is technical, and would come into play when the Secretary of State made an order under clause 20 revoking subordinate legislation of the devolved authority that was incompatible with international obligations, or that had an adverse effect on provisions relating to accepted matters. It permits such an order to take retrospective effect. There is a natural presumption against retrospective legislation, but it is justified in this case. The House reached that conclusion when it approved a corresponding provision in clause 54 of the Scotland Bill, from which clause 20 borrows heavily.

Mr. Grieve: I seek clarification of one point. I do not object to what the Minister is trying to do, but I am puzzled about where the amendment is being inserted. If the purpose is to provide for retrospective effect to an order revoking legislation, the amendment should be tagged on to the end of line 16. It has nothing to do with reciting the reasons for revoking the legislation, which are dealt with in subsection (5), which includes line 18.
What the Government seek to achieve is that, when an order is made to revoke legislation, there may also be provision for giving it retrospective effect, and I understand the reasons for that. I hope that the point is not too pedantic, but at some point, somewhere, someone will have to interpret the Bill, and it seems that the proper place for the amendment is in line 16.

Mr. Murphy: I shall raise that matter with those who drafted the Bill, because I agree that we need to consider it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

STATUTORY COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 11, line 20, at end insert—
'(5A) Standing orders shall provide that—
(a) a Minister may not be the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee; and
(b) in making a selection under the provision made by virtue of subsection (3)(a), a nominating officer shall prefer a committee in which he does not have a party interest to one in which he does.
(5B) For the purposes of subsection a nominating officer has a party interest in a committee if it is established to advise and assist a Northern Ireland Minister who is a member of his party.'.
No. 26, in page 11, line 23, leave out '(5)' and insert '(5A)'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 23

EXCLUSION OF MINISTERS FROM OFFICE

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 11, line 29, at end insert 'or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 35, leave out 'If the Assembly resolves' and insert
'If a motion is tabled, supported by at least 30 members, stating'.
Government amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 2, in page 11, line 40, leave out from 'Ministers' to end of line 41 and insert
'following the next Assembly sitting unless and until a resolution expressing confidence in that Party is approved by the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.

Mr. Murphy: I expect that several hon. Members want to speak on the amendments, and I shall answer their points at the debate's conclusion.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in particular, which stand in my name and the names of other hon. Members.
The clause deals with the mechanism for excluding individuals or parties from holding office in the New Northern Ireland Assembly. The mechanism as at present set out in the Bill requires in each instance a vote in the Assembly of cross-community support for a Minister to be excluded from office. The Bill sets out three options by which a resolution may be brought before the Assembly, but in each and every instance, for a motion to lead to the exclusion of a Minister or party, a cross-community vote is required. We believe that it should be the other way round.
On Wednesday I listened to the Prime Minister telling us in response to questions that it was he and he alone who decided who was in his Cabinet. Yet, in reality, in the Executive which will be the Government of Northern Ireland, the only way in which a Minister can be excluded from holding office is if there is a cross-community vote in the Assembly. That means that a Minister who enjoys the confidence of no other party in the Assembly but his

own may remain in office, provided that his own party has sufficient numbers to block a cross-community vote. That is unhelpful.
Let me give as an example a Minister who belongs to the SDLP. For the cross-community vote to operate, the SDLP is required to support it because the SDLP represents over 40 per cent. of the nationalist community. Therefore, in effect, the SDLP can veto the exclusion of one of its Ministers under any circumstance. That is unhealthy in a democratic institution.
We believe that, for a Minister to stay in office when a motion is tabled—in respect of amendment No. 1—by at least 30 Members, the Minister or his party has a responsibility to gain the support and confidence of other parties in the Assembly. Otherwise, the mechanism as it is set out in the Bill effectively gives a veto to individual parties. Indeed, it effectively gives a veto to my party on the Unionist side, because at the moment it has more than 40 per cent. of the Unionist seats in the Assembly. Therefore, at least two parties now under the mechanism in the Bill can veto the exclusion of any Minister, including a Minister belonging to their party, even if that Minister has lost the confidence of every other party in the Assembly. The mechanism is unhealthy and unworkable.
The Minister will be aware of our serious concerns, particularly in relation to parties connected to terrorist organisations. We have a deep anxiety that a Minister will be appointed to the Executive who is linked to a paramilitary or terrorist organisation. If those terrorist organisations are in breach of the terms of the agreement—for example, by refusing to co-operate on the international commission on disarmament, by committing murders or carrying out punishment beatings—it will be virtually impossible to have that Minister removed from office or his party excluded from holding ministerial office unless the support of the SDLP is secured. That position does not imbue the Unionist community with confidence in the mechanisms of the Bill.
I ask the Government to think again and to consider accepting amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the spirit that is intended—to make the institution more workable and to help it enjoy wider confidence than it presently enjoys.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Without changes such as would be effected by amendments Nos. 2 and 3, the Bill and the process becomes a farce.
Last night, when the same criteria as are in this Bill were applied in relation to the release of prisoners, the Government were prepared to close their eyes to the murder of one man, the beating up of many others, punishment beatings and shootings in Londonderry and all other acts of terrorism, and to allow those prisoners to be released. The same criteria applied in this case would allow IRA representatives to be in government. That may be acceptable to the Government, but it is unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. I suspect that it is not acceptable to a majority of the elected representatives.
That is not to say that there would not be a significant section who would be prepared to take any action against such Ministers. If the vote were taken today in the Assembly to exclude Sinn Fein members, I have no doubt that a majority would vote for exclusion, but it would not be a cross-community vote sufficient to ensure their exclusion. Therefore, the reality is that we do not have a working Assembly. The Executive cannot work on the


basis that some of those who are within its membership are still associated with death and destruction in the Province.
I notice that the Government have tabled amendment No. 29. I am subject to correction from those on the Opposition Front Bench who were helpful to me last time, but I have not heard it discussed before. I am sorry that the Minister did not say something about it. It has been one of the finest moments in my parliamentary career to see that, on the foot of an amendment that I tabled in Committee, the Government have actually agreed to remove four words from the Bill, although the fact that the Minister said nothing about it deflated me somewhat. However, the fact that he added about 30 extra words which are worse takes away some of the pleasure that I had.
I do not know what the Minister is trying to get at by this amendment, unless he is trying to get at the DUP. Perhaps he can explain it to us. I have never seen this kind of amendment before. The Minister provides for a party and its representatives to be excluded from government if there is
any likely failure of its members
to observe their pledge of office. The Assembly will have to look into the future to see what a representative might do if he were in office. No doubt, with crystal ball in hand, it will attempt to predict what a representative might do in government. That goes far too far. In particular, it does not relate to any involvement in terrorism, which is dealt with in paragraph (a). The amendment deals with unrelated, unspecified matters and it is important that we know what they are.
Moreover, as the clause is drafted, what the Assembly might perceive to be the position of one member of a political party automatically disqualifies all members of that political party for a 12-month period. The Minister needs to explain how all the representatives of a political party can be excluded because one member may be deemed in future to be likely not to observe the pledge of office.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Minister replies, can he tell us how it will be discovered who might become a Minister? I could well understand the clause and amendment if they dealt with a representative who had become a Minister, but how is it to be discovered who might become a Minister? There is only one way to discover that and it is to say that everybody in the party might become a Minister.
That is a strange amendment, therefore, which at one fell swoop, according to the interpretation given, could put a whole party out of the Assembly. I know that the Government would like to put my party out. During the campaign they said that we would not get there anyway, but then 20 of us turned up, so it is no wonder that they want to get rid of us. It is the strangest of strange amendments to say, without consultation with anyone, that someone could be excluded
because of any likely failure
What constitutes a likely failure? It is strange that, when the IRA fails to live up to its pledge to give up violence, and shoots, kills and maims—

Rev. Martin Smyth: If the provision were applied in this House, would any Executive stand for long, bearing

in mind all the reports and the fact that a special Committee has had to be set up to investigate the conduct of Members who have not behaved according to the traditions of this place?

7 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is very true. What could offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman and myself is that we are never likely to become Ministers, so we would not be included in the guillotine.
The Minister must tell us what he is after here. Whom does he intend to catch in the net, and what is the real purpose of the amendment?

Mr. David Winnick: I should have thought that clause 23 and the amendment are relevant to a matter that has been raised several times—the problem of those who engage in violence. The Unionists, who do not favour the agreement, and occasionally the Opposition Front-Bench team, have argued that there is no basic guarantee that Ministers will be thrown out for engaging in violence. Surely, as has been pointed out, clause 23(1)(a) is clear. The clause states:
a Minister no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly—
(a) because he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".

Mr. Peter Robinson: Government amendment No. 29 would replace paragraph (b) of clause 23, and refers to
any other terms of the pledge of office".
Surely that means any terms other than the pledge to non-violence?

Mr. Winnick: Strange as it may seem, I have read the amendment, so I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I should have thought that the amendment strengthens the position in many respects and makes the clause less vague. At the moment it refers only to "any other reason".
Every one of the pledges in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the pledge of office that has to be given by a Minister, on page 10 of the Belfast agreement, is essential if a Minister is to carry out his terms of office with integrity. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked what would happen if that pledge had to be observed in this Parliament. I hope that any Minister in any Government would act according to the requirements in the agreement for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I include in that the previous Government and any future Conservative Governments, let alone a Labour Government.
The pledges include:
to discharge in good faith all the duties of office … commitment to non-violence … to serve all the people … equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality … to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government … to support, and to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive … and the Assembly … to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
If the Assembly concludes that a Minister is not likely to comply with those pledges, obviously that must be a matter of concern. I accept that the word "likely" may give rise to difficulties, and I will listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply. I accept that it is not as


easy to decide what is likely as to decide what has occurred, but the amendment is a safeguard, and I see no reason why it should not be included.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We are not dealing with particular individuals as I understand it. The clause reads:
If the Assembly resolves that a political party does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly
and the amendment would follow on:
because of any likely failure of its members who are or might become Ministers to observe any other terms of the pledge of office".
We are talking about the exclusion of a party for that reason, not of an individual or a Minister.

Mr. Winnick: I accept that. Perhaps I did not make it as clear as I should have done. The fact remains, however, that Ministers are part of a political party, and will presumably be appointed because of that fact and because they identified themselves as such when they were elected to the Assembly. That is the position.
If members of a political party who have been elected to the Assembly give the impression—be it Sinn Fein or any other group—that they are not likely to carry out the pledge of office, the amendment offers a necessary safeguard. However, I will be interested to hear the Minister's interpretation of the word "likely". Given what Opposition Members have said about Sinn Fein, I should have thought that they would reach the conclusion that I have reached, which is that the provision offers a safeguard if members of Sinn Fein, or of any other party, become Ministers and are likely not to observe the 10 points in the pledge of office.

Mr. Öpik: I have two points to make about amendment No. 29. First, as the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out, the phrase "likely failure" is difficult. It creates a vagueness that someone will have to interpret, which concerns me.
The major problem is that raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) which is in the wording
who are or might become Ministers".
Although he said that it was exceedingly unlikely that he would be appointed a Minister in this House, theoretically it is possible. He might become a Minister in this Chamber, and I am sure that there are hon. Members who would welcome that. The word "might" is open to the simple interpretation that any member of the Assembly might become a Minister, and to that extent it genuinely excludes everyone. I understand the intent, but I strongly urge the Minister to think again about the amendment and perhaps table a tidied-up version in another place. As it stands, I would not touch it with a 40-ft bargepole.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) makes an interesting suggestion. I thought that it was a 4-ft bargepole before.
I think that everyone accepts that we had a long and good debate on exclusion in Committee, and I certainly do not intend to reiterate the Government's arguments

about that part of the Bill, but simply to say that the basic principles on which clause 23 is based are: first, that it is drafted to reflect the terms of the agreement; secondly, as in the agreement, the decision to exclude from ministerial office is for the Assembly to take, on a cross-community basis; and, thirdly, that clause 23 subsections (6) and (7) reflect the promise made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his Balmoral speech during the referendum campaign, by saying that the Secretary of State must take into account the four factors listed in subsection (7).
On the Government amendments, we were concerned because many parties and others made representations to us about the general nature of exclusion on the basis of the words "for any other reason".
I suspect that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) agrees about the first bit. The purpose of the second part, with which he disagrees, is to put into legislation a much tighter reason for exclusion beyond non-violence and democracy, which are already in. It relates entirely to the pledge of office. They are not words made up out of the blue; they are there as a direct consequence of reading the pledge of office across from the agreement.
We believe that the pledge of office covers all the relevant ministerial responsibilities. It includes the
commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
but it also other includes pledges
to discharge in good faith all the duties of office;
to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally … to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government;
to operate within the framework of that programme when agreed within the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly;
to support, and to act in accordance with, all the decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly;
to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Those pledges were agreed by negotiation. They were put into the agreement in written form and went to every household in Northern Ireland, and were in turn supported by the majority of people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: They are also already in the Bill where it deals with the individual. The Minister is talking about requiring all the members of a party to fulfil the pledge of office. If any of them are deemed not to be fulfilling it, all can be excluded and disqualified for 12 months.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when we debated party exclusion and individual exclusion in Committee, most hon. Members agreed that the Bill should include provisions for party exclusion. It makes no sense to exclude one person as a Minister—and I mean exclude as opposed to remove—unless similar restrictions apply to political parties. Without that, all that would happen is that one individual would be replaced by another from the same party, because, under the d'Hondt procedure, there is automatic entitlement to positions on the Executive.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, say, Sinn Fein was found to be involved with violence, apart from our views, the first to cry out for any Sinn Fein Ministers to be excluded would be the very people who


are concerned about this amendment. It is a safeguard. The only doubt in my mind concerns the word "likely". Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain that.

Mr. Murphy: Let me deal with those two points. It is right to deal with issues other than non-violence, because they are equally part of the agreement. The authors of the agreement—the political parties—thought that people who entered the Assembly, if they became Ministers, had a duty placed on them to ensure that the agreement and the assembly worked. That is achieved by signing the pledge of office. The exclusion of parties as well as individual Ministers has been introduced because it would be nonsense if only an individual were affected because that person could keep on being replaced by party colleagues when the reason for exclusion concerned not an individual but that person's party in some way going against the spirit of the agreement and the pledge of office.
On the word "likely", how do we exclude people from office if they belong to a political party that says publicly, through a manifesto or some other method, that it rejects the whole purpose of the agreement and the pledge of office and what it stands for? It can be determined by examining the manifesto and what people say publicly about the agreement. We are not taking about membership of the Assembly, because Members cannot be excluded. If the electorate vote for those people for the Assembly, that is the right of the people in that constituency. We are talking about the holding of office. The agreement specifically says that people cannot hold office unless they sign the pledge. If a political party says that it does not agree with the pledge, it is likely that it will break the pledge because it has said so. That is the reason for the provision.
Amendment No. 1 would allow 30 Members of the Assembly to exclude. That goes completely against the agreement, because it does not encompass cross-community support. Whatever the rights and wrongs of whether 30 Members should be able to do it, the amendment cannot be accepted because it contravenes what the agreement says about exclusion or removal being based on cross-community agreement.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister is wrong to say that the 30-Member mechanism is contrary to the agreement. It is the essence of the agreement, which uses 30 Members to provide a trigger mechanism on several other issues. The amendment uses the agreement's terminology. Its terminology relating to cross-community support comes in our next amendment.

Mr. Murphy: There is a difference between the simple triggering of a mechanism and amendment No. 1, which gives a different interpretation of the matter. We must ensure that the legislation, as far as possible, mirrors the agreement. Everyone knows that it must be based on cross-community support. That is set out twice in paragraph 25 of strand 1. The amendment does not even replace it with straightforward majority support; it gives a minority the right to exclude another party from ministerial office, and is not compatible with the agreement.
Amendment No. 2 is different, in that the agreement is silent on the length of exclusion. We want to try to implement the agreement, but inevitably a political

agreement leaves some practical gaps. We must consider what we think the spirit of the agreement is. The Bill should make some provision for the length of the period of exclusion. The provision should be as flexible as possible and allow the Assembly to vary the period of exclusion on the same basis as the original decision, by resolution with cross-community support. Where there is such support, the Assembly can determine as short or as long a period of exclusion as it sees fit. The decision is up to the Assembly.
We recognised that there might be different views on the period of exclusion to be served, so we sought to provide a basic period which was long enough to reflect the seriousness of the loss of confidence that triggered it but which offered the prospect of a return to ministerial office if the original cause of exclusion was removed. We think that that is in line with the spirit of the agreement. The period would last 12 months from the original vote, unless—this is important—the Assembly resolves to reduce it, or to extend it by successive periods of 12 months. That would be a matter for the Assembly, based on cross-community support.
Amendment No.2 would make the period of exclusion open-ended. It would require a positive vote before a party regained eligibility for ministerial office. I do not think that that is in line with the agreement, because the d'Hondt procedure automatically qualifies parties for entitlement, which is different from any system of which we have experience. That is why we cannot accept the amendment. We believe that nowhere in the agreement is there a requirement for a positive vote of confidence in favour of a particular party taking up ministerial office. That goes against proportionality, but especially against the d'Hondt procedure.

Mr. Donaldson: Has not the Minister just spent some time explaining to the House that there ought to be an amendment to the Bill to enable a whole party to be excluded from holding office if it is thought likely for any reason that it will not hold up to the pledge of office? He is arguing that the d'Hondt rule is sovereign and that there should be nothing to exclude individuals from holding office if their party is entitled to office under the d'Hondt system, yet a few moments ago he argued that, even if a party was likely to be in breach of the pledge of office, there might be a mechanism to exclude it from office. Is there not an inconsistency there?

Mr. Murphy: There is no inconsistency. We have made it clear—the Bill is consistent—that there is provision to exclude or remove from office both individuals and parties, for the reasons that I have explained, if the pledge of office is broken in some way or another. That is true especially of the pledge regarding non-violence, which is specifically mentioned in another part of the clause. Of course, that in itself means that the d'Hondt procedure is interfered with, because the pledge has been broken. Of course I understand that, but here we are talking about the return of such a party.
If the party has during the previous 12 months changed its policy and is committed to peaceful and non-violent means, there comes a time when that party ought to be able to return to the democratic fold. I see nothing wrong with that, but there is provision in the agreement for that 12 months to be extended or reduced if necessary, according to the feeling of the Assembly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Why then does the Minister change the rule completely in regard to this?


There is no mention of its being likely that a person will go back to violence. The word "likely" is not used in those terms, but it is used in regard to the pledge of office. Amendment No. 29 goes further than that. It says "members who are". Well, Members who are doing this can be seen to be doing it, but might become Ministers. Surely, if they are going to become Ministers, you are only pushing yourself out into the future and saying, "If they become Ministers, they are going to do the same thing." How can you prove that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I do not need to prove anything.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am asking the Minister a simple question. Why is it that the amendment has gone beyond persons in office to those who might be in office and is trying them and hanging them for something that they have not even done?

Mr. Murphy: If a party is saying, and all the world knows that it is saying, to the people of Northern Ireland—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Give us an example.

Mr. Murphy: It is not up to me to give any sort of example. If a political party goes to the people and says, "We will not accept the conditions of the pledge of office," it is the height of nonsense for that party to be in the Executive—not the Assembly. The Executive is entirely based on an agreement that says that Ministers must sign up to the pledge of office. It does not make any sense. The people will know that a party has said that it will not accept the pledge. If a political party has said so in its manifesto, it is likely that that party will not take office. That is much tighter than what the Bill originally said, which was "for any other reason." It is important that "any other reason" is taken away and in its place are inserted the words in the amendment.
We argued vigorously about "exclusion" as opposed to "removal" in Committee, but if we know beforehand what the policy of the party is likely to be because that is stated in the manifesto, on the radio, on the television or whatever, of course it does not make any sense that the party should take up office that depends on recognition and acceptance of the pledge of office. For those reasons, I commend the Government amendments to the House and ask it to reject amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 21.

Division No. 355]
[7.24 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Alexander, Douglas
Beard, Nigel


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Atherton, Ms Candy
Berry, Roger


Atkins, Charlotte
Best, Harold


Austin, John
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barron, Kevin
Blizzard, Bob





Boateng, Paul
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Borrow, David
Hoey, Kate


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hopkins, Kelvin


Buck, Ms Karen
Howells, Dr Kim


Burden, Richard
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hurst, Alan


Byers, Stephen
Hutton, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Illsley, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Casale, Roger
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Jamieson, David


Chaytor, David
Jenkins, Brian


Chisholm, Malcolm
Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)



Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Clelland, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Kemp, Fraser


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Coleman, Iain
Khabra, Piara S


Colman, Tony
Kingham, Ms Tess


Connarty, Michael
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Lepper, David


Corbett, Robin
Leslie, Christopher


Corbyn, Jeremy
Linton, Martin


Corston, Ms Jean
Livingstone, Ken


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McAvoy, Thomas


Cranston, Ross
McCabe, Steve


Crausby, David
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
McDonnell, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McGrady, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
McIsaac, Shona


Denham, John
McNamara, Kevin


Dismore, Andrew
McNulty, Tony


Dobbin, Jim
Mactaggart, Fiona


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
McWalter, Tony


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Dowd, Jim
Mallaber, Judy


Drew, David
Mandelson, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Efford, Clive
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ennis, Jeff
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Etherington, Bill
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Michael, Alun


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Mitchell, Austin


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Moffatt, Laura


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Moran, Ms Margaret


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gapes, Mike
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Gardiner, Barry
Mudie, George


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Godsiff, Roger
Olner, Bill


Golding, Mrs Llin
Palmer, Dr Nick


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Pearson, Ian


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Perham, Ms Linda


Hain, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Pike, Peter L


Heppell, John
Plaskitt, James


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Pollard, Kerry


Hill, Keith
Pond, Chris






Pope, Greg
Stevenson, George


Pound, Stephen
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn



Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Raynsford, Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen


Rooker, Jeff
Todd, Mark


Rowlands, Ted
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Vaz, Keith


Savidge, Malcolm
Vis, Dr Rudi



White, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shaw, Jonathan



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wills, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wood, Mike


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wyatt, Derek


Soley, Clive



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Ms Rachel
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. David Hanson.


Starkey, Dr Phyllis





NOES


Baker, Norman
Paisley, Rev Ian


Beggs, Roy
Rendel, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Burnett, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Thompson, William


Fearn, Ronnie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Forsythe, Clifford
Wilshire, David


Gorrie, Donald



Keetch, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. William Ross and Mr. Peter Robinson.


Öpik, Lembit

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 11, line 31, leave out from 'office;' to end of line 32.
No. 29, in page 11, leave out line 39 and insert—
'(b) because of any likely failure of its members who are or might become Ministers to observe any other terms of the pledge of office,'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 28

DISQUALIFICATION

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 14, line 36, after 'that', insert—
'(a)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 31.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments refer to the disqualification for Assembly membership of clergymen of the Church of Ireland and of the Roman Catholic Church and would bring the Northern Ireland Bill into line with the Scotland Bill.
We do not believe that the disqualification is necessary in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is anomalous as the disqualification does not apply to dissenting Ministers, who play a significant role in Northern Ireland politics, both in this House and, as I am sure they will, in the Assembly. I cannot say whether many clergy will take up the opportunities offered in the amendments, but we believe that it is in the best interests of the electorate to give the broadest possible choice of candidates by removing all inessential grounds for disqualification. Ultimately, it is for the electorate to decide who represents them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 14, line 37, at end insert
'; or
(b) he is ordained or is a minister of any religious denomination.'. —[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 31

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 16, leave out line 6 and insert—
'(c) the Assembly elects from among its members a person to hold office as Presiding Officer or deputy in his place.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments deal with replacing the presiding officer. Under clause 31 as it stands, it would theoretically be possible for the Assembly to dismiss the Presiding Officer or a deputy without appointing a successor. Although it is highly unlikely in practice that there would be cross-community support for such a move without there being support for an agreed successor, we have to provide for all contingencies. We cannot afford a vacancy in the Presiding Officer post: a vacuum would make the Assembly's business impossible and it would be unable to hold the necessary election for a replacement.
These are useful, tidying amendments and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 16, line 7, after 'office', insert
'(otherwise than under subsection (2)(c))'.
No. 34, in page 16, line 18, leave out from 'under' to 'without' in line 19 and insert 'subsections (1) to (3)'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 36

POWER TO CALL FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 18, line 29, after 'to' insert
'a person who is or has been'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 36 and 37.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments tidy the provisions for calling witnesses and documents. Subsection (4) makes it


clear that the Assembly does not have the power to summon Ministers of the Crown or persons in Crown employment about the discharge of their functions before the appointed day. It is a sensible provision that mirrors the Westminster convention that Ministers are not given sight of material shown to their predecessors.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 18, line 30, after 'person' insert
'who is or has been'.
No. 37, in page 18, line 38, at end insert—
'() a person discharging functions of any body whose functions relate to excepted matters, in connection with the discharge by him of those functions;'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 45

PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: TAXES

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 22, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 23.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39 to 42.
No. 6, in clause 51, page 25, line 9, at end insert—
'(3) Subject to subsection (4), no payment shall be made under section 45(1) or 46 unless a draft budget for the financial year to which the payment relates has been approved under subsection (2) and has been laid before the House of Commons at least ten sitting days before any motion is made in that House for the approval of a grant of supply out of which the payment is to be made.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) shall prejudice any grant of supply for the purposes of making good to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland any issue which may be authorised out of that Fund under section 47.'.
Government amendments Nos. 52 and 67.

Mr. Murphy: Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 and 52 respond to representations made to the Government by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the First Minister. They abolish the present system whereby the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland is financed from two sources. The first, which is represented by clause 45, is the so-called attributed share—the share of the total of UK taxes that comes from Northern Ireland. The second, in clause 46, is the additional payment made because the money raised from the attributed share is insufficient to meet Northern Ireland's needs.
In Scotland, these matters are not presented in the same way as they are for Northern Ireland. We see no reason for a difference; we therefore tabled the amendments to abolish the clause. It will make no difference to the total amount provided for Northern Ireland, but it is an important presentational point.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 remove the requirement for the draft budget to be laid before the Assembly by a specific date in December. The requirement was originally included to coincide with departmental and Treasury planning cycles, which change from time to time. We did not want the dates to be altered, nor did we want the Assembly to be so tied down. The amendment

merely requires the draft budget to be laid and considered before the start of the financial year. In practice, I expect the Assembly to deal with it before each Christmas to give Northern Ireland Departments time to allocate money internally for the new financial year, as we do at present.
Amendment No. 67 is consequential on the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46

PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 39, in page 23, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
No. 40, in page 23, line 20, at end insert
'of such amounts as he may determine'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 51

DRAFT BUDGETS

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 25, line 3, leave out
'on or before the first working day after 9th December in each year'
and insert
'before the beginning of each financial year'.
No. 42, in page 25, line 5, leave out 'the next financial' and insert 'that'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 53

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO TREASURY

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 25, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
'.—(1) The Treasury may require the Northern Ireland Ministers and departments to provide, within such period as the Treasury may specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may specify.
(2) If the information is not in their possession or under their control, their duty under subsection (1) is to take all reasonable steps to comply with the requirement.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 57

RESTRICTIONS ON APPLICATION OF RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 27, line 6, after '19(1)' insert '(a)'.

No. 45, in page 27, line 9, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a'.

No. 46, in page 27, leave out lines 14 to 20 and insert—
'(3) Section 6(2)(d)—
(a) does not apply to a provision of an Act of the Assembly if the passing of the Act is, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, not unlawful under subsection (1) of that section; and
(b) does not enable a court or tribunal to award in respect of the passing of an Act of the Assembly any damages which it could not award on finding the passing of the Act unlawful under that subsection.


(3A) Section 19(1)(a)—
(a) does not apply to an act which, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, is not unlawful under subsection (1) of that section; and
(b) does not enable a court or tribunal to award in respect of an act any damages which it could not award on finding the act unlawful under that subsection.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 62

DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 29, line 28, at end insert—
'() Subsection (1) applies to the making of subordinate legislation only if—
(a) the legislation contains a provision which discriminates against a person or class of person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion; and
(b) the provision extends only to the whole or any part of Northern Ireland.
() Where it is alleged that subsection (1) applies to the making of subordinate legislation, subsection (2) shall not apply but the contravention may be relied upon in legal proceedings relating to validity of the subordinate legislation.'.

No. 48, in page 29, leave out lines 31 to 33.

No. 49, in page 29, line 36, after 'authority', insert
'(other than a Northern Ireland department)'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 66

PARTICIPATION IN NSMC AND BIC

Mr. Donaldson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 31, line 41, at end insert—
'(3) No executive function shall be discharged under this section, by a Minister or Ministers, without the prior approval of the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 68, page 32, line 20, at end insert
'but may not be made without the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.

Mr. Donaldson: The terms of the agreement in strand 2 dealing with the north-south ministerial council state:
Northern Ireland to be represented by the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and any relevant Ministers, the Irish Government by the Taoiseach and relevant Ministers, all operating in accordance with the rules for democratic authority and accountability in force in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas respectively.
The amendment would make explicit in the Bill the requirement for democratic authority to be granted to Ministers as they enter into discussions and reach decisions in the north-south ministerial council with their Irish counterparts. It must be clearly understood that Ministers are operating with democratic authority, as laid down by the Assembly, and that they are accountable to the Assembly for executive decisions taken after discussions in the north-south ministerial council.
Amendment No. 5 applies to clause 68, which deals with the implementation bodies that will be agreed and established by the north-south ministerial council. Subsection (4) states:
Where the Secretary of State has made or proposes to make grants under subsection (3), an order under this section may make provision corresponding to paragraph 7 of Schedule 8".
The amendment would add the words
but may not be made without the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).
The agreement makes it clear in the provisions under strand 2 that funding for the implementation bodies is to be provided by the two Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Government—
on the basis that the Council and the implementation bodies constitute a necessary public function.
Our amendment seeks to take account of the provisions of the agreement, which would require the Assembly, voting on a cross-community basis, to bring into effect the funding for the implementation bodies. If the Assembly is to have real control over its budget, it is important that it should have control over the funding of the implementation bodies.
I hope, therefore, that the Government, honouring the spirit of the agreement and its terms, particularly in relation to the functions of the assembly, will accept the amendments. They cannot argue against the amendments on the basis that they are not in the agreement, because they clearly follow the explicit terms of the agreement. The amendments would create more confidence in the accountability of the north-south institutions to the Assembly.

Mr. Peter Robinson: We are dealing with one of the twin pillars of the agreement, to which the Prime Minister directly referred when he came to Northern Ireland and when he gave commitments in the House and elsewhere. He made it clear that the Assembly would be democratic and that the north-south bodies would be accountable to the Assembly.
I shall be frank. Throughout the referendum campaign, I made it clear that I did not see anywhere in the agreement what the Prime Minister was saying. The Bill is a faithful representation of what the agreement says, but it is not a faithful representation of how the agreement was interpreted by the Prime Minister for the people of Northern Ireland—it was, after all, based on the interpretation of the Prime Minister that the people of Northern Ireland voted in the referendum.
This is the Prime Minister's Government, and I suppose that it must be recognised that they will want to make good the Prime Minister's pledges. On 20 May—that famous occasion—the Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland, complete with his poster hoarding, and personally signed his five pledges. One was that the power to take decisions would be
returned to a Northern Ireland Assembly, with accountable North/South co-operation.
That pledge contains two elements—accountability and co-operation—but the Bill makes it very clear that the north-south bodies are not accountable to the Assembly, and that they will be performing executive functions.
I remember that, in Committee, the Minister attempted to say that the north-south bodies were accountable because Ministers were accountable. If he is relying on


that argument as his get-out clause for what the Prime Minister said, I have to tell him that it is very weak. He knows as well as I do that Ministers are not accountable in the sense that Ministers would be accountable in this Chamber. A majority cannot get rid of a Minister or overturn a ministerial decision. In this set-up, it requires a consensus vote and, in many cases, the Minister's party could veto any move against him or against his decision. There is no real accountability. If accountability applies only to the Minister, not to his actions, that makes the position even weaker.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that he has not resolved the issue that is central to the concerns of many Unionists in the House and in Northern Ireland, and that he has to do better. The provision cannot remain in the Bill and enjoy the support of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGrady: It seems that the amendment seeks to ensure that democratic accountability resides with the Assembly of Northern Ireland in respect of the involvement of members of the north-south ministerial council. I refer the proposers of the amendment to paragraph 6 of strand 2 of the agreement, which reads:
Each side to be in a position to take decisions in the Council within the defined authority of those attending, through the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction. Each side to remain accountable to the Assembly and Oireachtas respectively".
The degree of accountability is clear, and the Bill reflects that accountability. I refer the House to clause 15 in part III, which deals with the executive authority of the First, Second and any other Ministers.
The Bill states that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will present to the Assembly a programme of executive action and budgetary control. Clause 15(2) states:
A determination
in respect of policy, intended executive action and a proposed budget
under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.
The thread of authority flows directly from the Assembly, through cross-community approval to Ministers and the participating persons in the north-south body, which, by its very nature, is constrained by that which has already been approved by the Assembly. Although I understand the fears expressed by the proposers of the amendment, I submit that they are fully covered by the Bill.

Mr. Öpik: Liberal Democrats raised this issue at earlier stages of our consideration of the Bill. There is great concern in certain quarters that there is no specific reassurance in the Bill that executive functions discharged by Ministers under the strand 2 arrangements require cross-community approval, as outlined in the amendment.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made it clear that his interpretation of the Bill, especially clause 15 and related clauses, is that it contains sufficient conditions to ensure that no significant decisions can be made by Ministers before those decisions have received the approval of or ratification from the Assembly. I understand his cogent argument, but it would be

extremely helpful if, for the sake of the record, which will be used to interpret the Bill, he could give a reassurance that it is his clear expectation that Ministers could not embark on important executive decisions without the clear authorisation of the Assembly.
This debate and its consequences could cause friction in the future, and we have to navigate it carefully. One of the advantages that we have is that we shall review procedures in the not too distant future, once the Assembly has had some time to function. I seek the Minister's reassurance that he will be willing to revisit the matter if it seems that there are continuing difficulties with strand 2, and that, if it becomes clear that there are deficiencies, he will return to the House with proposals to overcome them.

Mr. Temple-Morris: This issue was discussed in Committee. I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), and I have a great deal of sympathy with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). This provision needs to be drawn as tightly as possible, and there are gaps between the Bill and paragraphs 9 to 13 of strand 2 of the Belfast agreement, which is what concerns Opposition Members.
I might be reinforcing that point by saying that, if I remember rightly, during our previous debate my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to examine the wording of clause 66. I am sure that clause 68, which is allied to it, will form part of that research. In other words, the Minister has already given an undertaking, which will no doubt be repeated now and which will form part of the busy summer that he is rapidly taking upon himself.
My substantive point is that although we need to get things right, I see no cause for alarm. Paragraph 13 of strand 2 of the agreement states:
It is understood that the North/South Ministerial Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly are mutually inter-dependent".
The idea that a functionary of the Assembly can participate in these bodies without the broad consent of the Assembly before, after or during is not at issue. I am sure that the Assembly will control that which it has to control, whatever the drafting of the particular clauses. If it does not, it will not work. It is as simple as that.
However, I agree that there must be sufficient resemblance between the Bill and the Belfast agreement. The accountability is there, as is the legislative authority that has been transferred to the Assembly. Anything that any Northern Ireland Minister does in one of these bodies has to be approved in legislation by the Assembly. In common-sense terms, that is sufficient, but we should perhaps improve the clause to allay any fears that might exist in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paul Murphy: We debated this matter at some length earlier in the week and on Second Reading. I take account of the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and by other hon. Members. I shall deal with the two amendments and then make some general comments.
Amendment No. 5 is unnecessary because it deals with orders that will be made during the transitional shadow period to give effect to arrangements that will have been agreed by the Northern Ireland Administration. The Secretary of State's power to make orders under the


clause are needed to enable the Government to meet their responsibility to set up the implementation bodies that are envisaged in strand 2. They will be identified and agreed between representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional administration and the Irish Government operating in the north-south ministerial council. Of course, they will be set up by order in the House.
8 pm
Amendment No. 4 goes beyond the Belfast agreement by insisting on prior approval of every ministerial function. Paragraph 6 of strand 2 clearly states:
Each side to be in a position to take decisions in the Council within the defined authority of those attending, through the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction.
The amendment goes against that. However, I sympathise with much of what hon. Members have said, because, although to my mind it is clear that the north-south ministerial council must be properly accountable to the Dail and to the Assembly, there is a case for looking more carefully at the wording of the relevant clauses to ensure that accountability is clear. I think that the meaning is implicit, but there is a need to look at the matter again.
Some days ago I said, and I repeat, that no Minister on the north-south ministerial council who is worth his salt would return to the Assembly in the knowledge that he or she would not have its backing. For example, money would have to be provided for any scheme and legislation might be required, and those are matters for the Assembly. There is a case for revisiting the clauses and I shall be grateful if the amendment is withdrawn on the understanding that we shall look at the wording in another place.

Mr. Donaldson: In the light of what the Minister has said, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the Minister will pay careful attention to what has been said. We stand ready to assist him with the wording in whatever way we can. I hope that he will take on board our arguments on this important aspect of the Bill. The Government must understand that if there is to be confidence among many people the Government must address this matter. I welcome the speech by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) in that regard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 73

PROVISIONS FOR PURPOSES CONSEQUENTIAL ON ACTS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 34, line 32, at end insert—
'() Provision may be made for transferring to a United Kingdom authority, with effect from the appointed day, any functions which—
(a) immediately before that day are exercisable by an existing Northern Ireland authority; and
(b) appear to Her Majesty to be concerned with a matter which is an excepted matter by virtue of paragraph 9A of Schedule 2.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 77

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 36, line 33, leave out '45(3)' and insert
'(Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination)(3)'.

No. 52, in page 36, line 36, leave out '45(4) or'.

No. 53, in page 36, line 39, at end insert—
'() Regulations under section (Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination)(4) shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 2

EXCEPTED MATTERS

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 40, line 8, leave out from 'whole,' to end of line 14 and insert
'stamp duty levied in Northern Ireland before the appointed day and taxes substantially of the same character as that duty'.
This is a simple, technical amendment, and I ask the House to accept it

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 40, line 14, at end insert—
'9A. National insurance contributions; the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund and payments into it; reductions in and deductions from national insurance contributions; national insurance rebates; contributions equivalent premiums; rights to return to the state scheme.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 5

PLEDGE OF OFFICE

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 44, line 7, at end insert—

'CODE OF CONDUCT

Ministers must at all times:
observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity involving impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relationship to the stewardship of public funds;
be accountable to users of services, the community and, through the Assembly, for the activities within their responsibilities, their stewardship of public funds and the extent to which key performance targets and objectives have been met;
ensure all reasonable requests for information from the Assembly, users of services and individual citizens are complied with; and that Departments and their staff conduct their dealings with the public in an open and responsible way;
follow the seven principles of public life set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life;
comply with this code and with rules relating to the use of public funds;
operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment;
not use information gained in the course of their service for personal gain; nor seek to use the opportunity of public service to promote their private interests;
ensure they comply with any rules on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality that might be offered;


declare any personal or business interests which may conflict with their responsibilities. The Assembly will retain a Register of Interests. Individuals must ensure that any direct or indirect pecuniary interests which members of the public might reasonably think could influence their judgement are listed in the Register of Interests.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 6

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY COMMISSION

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 44, leave out lines 15 to 31.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 58.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments are technical and relate to the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. We included in paragraph 2 of schedule 6 provisions that were borrowed from the Scotland Bill, which empowers UK Ministers to make certain transfers of property to the Scottish equivalent of the commission. However, in our case property is specifically dealt with in clause 74. In particular, the buildings that will be used initially by the Assembly already belong to the devolved system.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 45, line 5, at end insert—
'() holding property;'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 11

DEVOLUTION ISSUES

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 52, line 23, at end insert 'or'.

No. 60, in page 52, line 25, leave out from 'be,' to end of line 28 and insert
'invalid by reason of section 19'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 13

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 60, line 30, at end insert—
"Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)
. In section 189 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations and orders: general)—
(a) in subsection (9), for "175 and 178" substitute "and 175"; and
(b) in subsection (11), for "any of sections 177 to 179" substitute "section 179".

Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c.8)
. In section 165 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (regulations and orders: general)—
(a) in subsection (10), for "152 and 154" substitute "and 152"; and
(b) in subsection (11), for "any of sections 153 to 155" substitute "section 155".—[Mr.Ingram.]

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 60, leave out lines 33 to 36.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 63 to 65.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments are technical and are consequent on the dissolution of the Northern Ireland

Disability Council. They make appropriate changes to the part of the schedule that relates to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which established that council. They also make good some omissions in the earlier draft of the Bill relating to the titles of the Northern Ireland Disability Council and the new Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. I have pleasure in asking the House to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 60, line 37, after 'Schedule 8', insert—
'(a)".

No. 64, in page 60, line 38, leave out
'the Northern Ireland Equality Commission'
and insert
'the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland'.

No. 65, in page 60, line 38, at end insert—
'(b) for paragraph 33(1) substitute—
33.—(1) In sections 50 to 52, for "the Council" substitute, in each place, the "Equality Commission for Northern Ireland".
(1A) Section 50(1) and (8) shall have no effect."; and
(c) for paragraph 52 substitute—
52. Schedule 5 shall have no effect.".'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 14

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 62, line 18, at end insert—
'Social security and child support
. Any regulations made under any enactment repealed by virtue of section (Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination) shall have effect, with any necessary modifications as if they had been made under subsection (3) or, as the case may require, subsection (4) of that section.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 15

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 63, line 7, column 3, leave out 'and (2)'.

No. 68, in page 63, line 52, column 3, at end insert—
'Section 56(2) to (4).'.

No. 69, in page 63, line 52, at end insert—


'S.I. 1991/2628 (N. I.23).
Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
Article 49(2) and (3)


1992 c.5.
Social Security Administration Act 1992.
Sections 177 and 178.Schedule 8.


1992 c.8.
Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
Sections 153 and 154.In section 167(1), the definition of "Joint Authority".'.


—[Mr. Ingram.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)

That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rural public passenger transport for 1998–99 (HC 941), which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES

That the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and P & O Scottish Ferries Limited and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for the provision of passenger ferry services to Orkney and Shetland, which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Jewish High School (Leeds)

Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I am grateful for the opportunity to present the petition of the Leeds Jewish High School Trust, its supporters and 3,000 citizens of Leeds. The petition declares:
that the establishment of a Local Authority Jewish High School for the City of Leeds would benefit not only the substantial Jewish community but all the citizens of Leeds as well.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to approve the application for a Jewish High School in Leeds.

To lie upon the Table.

New Prison (Ashford)

Mr. David Wilshire: I have pleasure in presenting a petition from some 1,100 of my constituents who live near the site for the proposed new women's prison at Woodthorpe road Ashford in the county of Middlesex. They are united in their opposition to the Government's plan. They and many others whom I represent understand and support the need for additional prison accommodation, but they are adamant that it should not be sited in the middle of a large residential area and must not use up one of the rare areas of open space in Ashford.
The petition states:
That the proposals by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to build a Women's Prison at Woodthorpe Road, Ashford, Middlesex will be detrimental to the interests of local residents and is contrary to their clearly expressed views as communicated to Her Majesty's Government by their Member of Parliament.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Home Secretary to consider the harm that will be done to residents of the Spelthorne Constituency and cancel his plans.

To lie upon the Table.

Ladydale, Leek

Charlotte Atkins: I have pleasure in presenting this petition, which has been signed by more than 680 of my constituents, who wish to preserve the beautiful tranquillity of a delightful area on the edge of Leek. Known as Ladydale, that lovely wooded area surrounds an ancient well. Residents wish to protect the area from future housing and development plans for themselves and the future generations of Leek. The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and Regions to call in the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan Housing Policy No. FMOD-H1 and take whatever action is required to safeguard Ladydale II and Ashenhurst Way from any future development plans.

To lie upon the Table.

Genetically Modified Crops

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am sure that the House—the bit that is left here—will be delighted to learn that this important debate has come on so early in the evening that hon. Members who wish to intervene in what is a matter of great public importance will have an opportunity to do so without seeking the permission of the Minister or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—such is the time that we have to relax to discuss this important matter.
Somehow or other, I have managed to secure the good will of the Speaker this evening, who has selected this debate. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to raise a matter that causes considerable concern to a sizeable number of the electorate, both in my constituency and, I suspect, throughout the country.
The problem is that any number of Departments are involved in genetic engineering. They include the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry. However, I am glad that the Government have wheeled in for this debate the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a respected sparring partner of mine over the past 25 years. It is very good that he is here to answer this debate.
This is a crucial moment for agriculture. This year, the first wave of genetically modified crops in commercial operation will be loosed upon our environment. This is a make-or-break moment for the Government and for everyone who is concerned about the food that we eat.
The Government have a problem; they have a number of problems, but they have a particular problem here. They have allowed 1,200 experimental crops to be planted, including 163 genetically modified crops, short-circuiting regulations prescribing a four-year trial period for all new crops. In effect, the Government have been telling applicants for seed trials that they have dispensed with the regulation that the seed producer must first do his own two-year trials to produce data.
Under those regulations, only after the seed producer has done those trials can the Government decide whether further trials are necessary. Those trials, as I understand it, are administered by the Minister's Department. I do not know whether I have understood that correctly, but I think that is the situation for genetically modified crops or any other crops. There is a four-year trial: two years of trials are done by the producer seed company, and two years are done under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Court of Appeal judgment on 21 July in a case brought by my constituent Guy Watson, an organic farmer from Staverton, threw up the fact that all the 1,200 experimental crops, including 163 genetically modified crops, have been unlawfully planted. The Government have flouted the seed regulations; or, if not flouted, they have ignored them. There may be good reason for that, but they have done so.
Not only that, but under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the person who receives consent to release a genetically modified crop into the environment should be

the same person who implements the release. That is the law, as I understand it. The Act gives consent to a particular person to release a genetically modified crop into the environment and that person should be the same person who implements the release; but I understand that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—is granting permission to seed companies for trials that are being carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany.
It seems that that is also against the law, or certainly against good practice. Consents and permissions that are granted under the Act to one person should not be passed on to another.
The Minister might comment on what has been going on, although it is not the responsibility of his Department. As I explained at the outset of my speech, the problem with genetically modified crops is that so many Government Departments are involved. Just when we think that we have got hold of the right Government Department, some other Minister pops up.
The Environmental Protection Act is the relevant Act, so it is not the responsibility of the Minister who is here to answer this debate, but I am sure that he can find an answer to this problem. I do not want to organise another Adjournment debate to find out the answer.
The Court of Appeal judgment means that the Minister cannot just ride roughshod over rules and regulations. I am not suggesting that he consciously did so. Clearly, he was not aware that this was going on, and I am sure that he is delighted that the matter has been brought to his attention. However, like anyone else, MAFF has to comply with the law.
The first question is: what are the Minister and the Government going to do to legalise the 1,200 experimental crops that are blowing in the wind, or in a gale, having been illegally planted throughout the country? Driving down the motorway, people look out and think, "That field has been beautifully prepared." Little do they know that none of those plants should be there. They are all illegal. The police should be called in. Those plants should be cleared because they are not lawful.
Clearly, all hon. Members in the Chamber want to hear before the House rises—this is why this debate is so relevant—what the Minister is going to do about this. Those crops are illegal and the Minister has got to make them lawful or pull them up; he has to do something. Perhaps he can tell us what he is going to do on that point. The House will be interested in what he feels is possible.
As the regulations are drafted, the characteristics of these crops that are waving around in the wind—not just the genetically modified crops, but all the crops that are being experimented on—would normally be tested in the first two years by the company that creates the seed. Normally, in those first two years, the company would have looked at the yields, how well the crops grew, their resistance to disease and other things. Those things would be tested first by the seed companies and, after them, by the Government.
As a result of short-circuiting the process, MAFF has absolutely no data because there are no company trials. In the past, the Department used the data to reject companies' applications on the grounds that the initial two years had shown that the crop was not worth testing any further, so unproductive or useless seeds could be weeded


out. Of every 100 varieties that the seed companies entered into the trials, only 80 per cent. ever made it into the national seed listings. The rules and regulations that were passed by the House were of real advantage as they represented a sluice gate. They gave companies the opportunity to see how a seed reacted and to examine the data on it before submitting it to the Government for a further two-year testing. Now, however, the lack of prior testing means that any seed manufacturer can insist that his crop is submitted to the national seed trials.
Prior to the rules and regulations being passed over, seed manufacturers had to do the work themselves and produce the data before asking the Government to look at their crop; if the Government did not think much of it, they could throw it out. Since the rules and regulations have been bypassed, companies can and do demand that their crops go forward to the national seed trials. Genetically modified crops receive no special evaluation. Without the data obtained from initial trials, the Government have been unable to do any weeding out at all; they have to trial every variety of seed, genetically modified or not, because there are no rejection criteria or prior data.
This year, for the first time in Britain, genetically modified seeds have been presented to the Department for trial. This is the first of two years of trials. After the experimental period ends next year—the second year of trial—genetically modified crops could be widespread. If they get on to the national seed register, such crops could be waving around in fields all over the country and the seeds could be available for purchase.
We could end up with a country of genetically engineered crops. As we drive down the motorway, instead of seeing unlawful crops as we do now, we will see genetically modified crops instead. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister would explain who is supervising the genetically modified crop trials. Is it the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the British Society of Plant Breeders? It is a bit like an Agatha Christie novel. There are so many organisations—some of them quangos, some of them private, some of them independent and some of them governmental—and one has to work to find out who is supervising what, including genetically modified crop trials.
The next equation relates to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which controls the release of any substance into the atmosphere. Genetically modified crops are evolutionary anomalies. They are not the products of natural or artificial selection, but are genetic hybrids. They are manufactured organisms jumbled together out of fish, animals, bacteria and other plant species. For that reason, if a seed company wishes to plant a genetically modified crop, it has to have the permission of ACRE—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. ACRE is administered by the biotechnology unit in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, so here we jump into another Department's responsibility.
As far as one can tell, no applications to ACRE for permission to release a genetically modified substance into the environment has ever been refused. So I am not sure what ACRE does—because it just rubber-stamps everything. Bearing in mind the fact that there are now 163 trials of genetically modified crops, including about 20 varieties of each of those crops with an average of

eight trials of each variety, does the Minister feel that perhaps the rubber-stamping process should be halted so that we can look into the effect of genetically modified crops being released into the environment? Perhaps the trial period should not be left at two years.
The matter appears especially important now that the experimental period has been truncated to two years. If the Minister intends to make lawful all the crops that are waving around all over the country, how does he propose to do it? Will he say that the two years of MAFF experiments must be followed by another two years of trials by the seed manufacturers? Will he go for four years, or will he be content with two years and pass rules and regulations to that effect? There may be a strong case for two years for all experimental crops other than genetically modified crops. If he intends to change the regulations—and he has to do something—will he distinguish between ordinary seed and genetically modified seed?
As things stand, seeds—whether they are genetically modified or ordinary seeds—will be on the national seed list next year. If the Minister takes no action, genetically modified crops could be readily available. Crops on the national seed list have been approved by the Government, so anyone can go out and buy them. Genetically modified crops would then be widespread throughout the country, altering the genetic make-up of traditional and organic crops. The situation is akin to that of the grey squirrels and the red squirrels, and we all know what happened to the latter.
I now turn to the issue in my constituency of Totnes. The Court of Appeal judgment concerns a crop planted a stone's throw from the Watsons at Riverford farm—one of the largest organic farms in the United Kingdom with 800 acres devoted to organic food. It has a splendid farm shop which sells the most delicious produce, attracting people from miles around, including me. It sells not only fruit and vegetables, but wonderful meat and sausages, ham and bacon. I think that the sausages won the Guardian award for the best sausage in Britain last year or the year before. The shop is certainly worth a visit.
How could ACRE officials have selected a trial site for genetically modified maize a few hundred yards from an organic farm? Clearly, those ACRE officials need their heads examined. Furthermore, they have trespassed on the good will of a well respected local farmer, Jack Connabeer, who perfectly legitimately has been letting out his land for seed trials. I am sure that he would be horrified if he learned that ACRE was using some of his land so close to his good neighbour and the organic farm to plant experimental, genetically modified maize.
The problem is that Mr. Connabeer is unlikely to have known about it because, before planting the crop, ACRE did not follow the normal procedures for notification—another twist in the story. It behaved as if it was organising a cover-up. ACRE announced the trial through a very small advertisement in the local paper, whereas the full procedure that should have been followed would have been to notify all local farmers of the plans and to ask for objections—but it did not do that. ACRE decided that there was very little risk involved in the planting of maize, and the proper procedures were not followed.
Would the Minister be good enough to undertake that such short-circuitry does not happen again? The problem that involved the Court of Appeal and led to tonight's


debate was caused by the fact that the ACRE officials were so shortsighted and narrow minded that they allowed genetically modified crops to be planted on that site. Had they not done so, I doubt whether the debate would be taking place, and the country would be the poorer for that. In fact, we should thank officials for planting genetically modified crops so close to an organic farm because that has brought the matter to public attention.
There is enough time for the Minister to deal very fully with whether he will ensure that, in future, ACRE advertises in newspapers and notifies local farmers of its plans so that objections can be discussed. If there had been proper advertisement, the farmers in the area would have said, "Look here; this is not the thing to do. Go and take your genetically modified maize somewhere else." As the procedures were not followed, an unfortunate situation has arisen.
Not only is the Minister disregarding his own rules and regulations, but the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which is part not of his Ministry but of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, is short-circuiting accepted requirements. It probably would have got away with it but for the fact that it stupidly chose the wrong spot; and local environmentalists, of whom, I am glad to say, my constituency is full, alerted the Watsons on their organic farm.
Having taken the story thus far, I should like to bring in the Soil Association. It has said that, at 200 m away, had the whole of the trial site been genetically modified, it would have expected one in 1,000 kernels in Mr. Watson's crops to be contaminated with genetically modified crops. On this occasion, only a small proportion of the trial site was genetically modified, so the contamination may be diluted to about one kernel in 40,000. In a year or two, organic farmers face the prospect that all the crops next door to them will be genetically modified—with a commensurate increase in contamination. This year, because the Watsons were alerted and have a very large farm, they planted their maize crop as far away as possible from the experimental maize. Their crop is about 1.5 km to 2 km away from the GM maize even though the two farms' fields are only about 100 m apart at the nearest point.
The Government must outlaw any planting of genetically modified crops near organic farms. That must be in the Minister's mind, given this afternoon's announcement of a considerable increase in grants for organic farming and the fact that the Government must be aware that it is no good helping organic farmers whose crops are surrounded by genetically modified crops. I am sure that the Minister will explain that there must be some no-go areas where GM crops are prohibited due to the dangers of cross-pollination.
We must be aware that pollination is not the only way of achieving what is known as horizontal gene transfer, on which the Minister is probably an expert. The biotechnology industry uses bacteria and viruses—what it calls vectors—as a means of introducing DNA from one sort of a plant or animal to another. Vectors are the transport system, but they are rather hit and miss because they remain present in the crop. There has been very little research on the matter, but what there has been shows that such bacteria enter the soil.
We know that, in some cases, the industry even uses antibiotic-resistant varieties, such as the one grown in Devon last year. The concern is that it takes only an earthworm to ingest the bacteria and a song thrush to pick up the worm and move it two miles away for dangerous organisms to be moved around the country very quickly. When DNA modifications contain herbicide-resistant, antibiotic-resistant or sterility genes, there could be a knock-on effect on the environment about which we do not know. Those concerned with the environment obviously feel very strongly about that.
I see the GM issue as of a different scale from previous problems. We are talking about living organisms. Even DDT will fade away eventually, as do other chemicals sprayed on plants. But GM organisms work in the opposite direction; they are likely to increase and multiply. English Nature, the Government watchdog, is calling for a five-year moratorium, because an evaluation of the possible effects on the environment has yet to be completed.
What are the risks? Many genetically modified crops have an antibiotic-resistant gene built into them. That is the worry, because, as we all know, susceptibility to antibiotics is already weakening in the population as a result of people eating livestock that have been fed with too many antibiotics. Now, there is the possibility that antibiotic resistance will be added to by plant-based foods. That must be of long-term concern to the House and the country.
We very rarely operate the precautionary principle in this country. We often say that we do not have evidence for holding back, but problems often emerge only after some time, following widespread use of a technology or an agricultural practice. We are witnessing a fundamental shift in agricultural practice. One could say that the use of pesticides after the second world war constituted a second agricultural revolution. We are seeing the dawn of a third agricultural revolution, which is on a completely different scale.
Genetic engineering is altering the building blocks of life. That does not mean that we should necessarily fear it. It could produce high yields. Frost-resistant strawberries could be grown throughout the year in Britain, wheat that is resistant to draughts could be grown in the Sahara or anywhere affected by global warming, starvation could be prevented all over the globe. Genetic engineering could represent a wonder drug. One could argue that breeding plants that are resistant to pests will mean that no pesticides will be necessary in future, but by breeding plants with in-built pesticides, we may cause a build-up and over-use of natural pesticides, which may have a knock-on effect on wildlife and the environment generally.
We are on the threshold of a major development in the agricultural world. The biotechnology industry might be able to produce crops to feed the planet and be of major benefit to farmers, but do we really need them? I ask that question because I gather that 10 per cent. of available farm land in Europe is already set-aside land. We as taxpayers are paying farmers not to grow food; we are paying them to do nothing. As the boundaries of Europe stretch, even more land will be made available.
It seems curious that we are experimenting with super-crops when we already have too much food. Perhaps the future of genetic engineering will benefit


other countries in the world that are not as fortunate as ours. We should not be for ever increasing subsidies to enable farmers to grow more and more food which we cannot eat.
The Court of Appeal judgment effectively warned the nation and the Minister to be cautious and to test such potentially damaging crops for longer. They may be damaging, or they may herald a new revolution—but we do not know which. What can be good can equally be bad. We must all show a little caution when re-working the very building blocks of nature.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, and on the fact that it is taking place on a day on which we have more time than we would normally have expected. I want to make a few limited points, partly in relation to my early-day motion 1583, of which I am sure the Minister is aware.
There are important issues at stake here which require ministerial clarification, and would benefit from a more substantial parliamentary debate. The Court of Appeal ruling has rendered the status of the 1,200 field trials of genetically modified crops somewhat ambiguous. The trials are illegal, but there was no ruling obliging people to dig the crops up. Moreover, there was no clarification of the legal responsibility for the knock-on consequences on other crops grown on adjacent land, in terms of mutations and cross-pollination.
What worries me most is the fact that our current approach to genetically modified crops does not acknowledge the widest context in which we as a society should be assessing them. The nature of the trials has not properly assessed the wider consequences in terms of environmental impact and effects on human health.
We are talking about a paradigm shift in the nature of our agricultural practices. Throughout history, farmers have propagated crops and saved seed. Usually they have shared seeds, and in doing so they have generally added to the strength of the biodiversity to which we have access. The consequences of their actions have been understood and usually spread over long periods.
We are now entering a time in which it is possible to engineer change on a much more substantial scale and in a much shorter time frame. If we choose to do so, we must ensure that we are fully aware of the wider consequences. In both agriculture and medicine, one of the great strengths of the way in which we have approached change is that we have been ruled by the precautionary principle—that is, until we know the fullest and widest consequences, it is best not to allow out of the bottle something that we may have serious difficulty in putting back inside it.
However, that principle does not seem to be applied to our approach to field trials of genetically modified crops. The hon. Member for Totnes is right to warn the House that as yet we do not know enough about the consequences of the transgenic mutations or the impact that strains of genetically modified crops which are resistant to herbicides, antibiotics and pesticides, and have strains of bacteria and viruses built in, will have on other crops in nearby parts of the farmed countryside.
We should recognise that there is an element of folly, which the House and the Government ought to resist with all their might, in the belief that we have miracle crops that will provide the answers to all our immediate fears—crops that are resistant to drought, blight and cold.
It is possible for genetic engineering to produce such seeds and crops, but it is naive and irresponsible for us to believe that such change does not carry its own consequences. For instance, we already know that drought-resistant wheat tends to be more water-thirsty than ordinary wheat. That has its own results in the demands that it makes on the land, and in terms of sustainable agriculture.
We also know that nature abhors a vacuum. By and large, we have had a period of seven, 10, or even 15 years in which a new seed variety may be blight-free, but we know from the whole history of agricultural change that at the end of that period the new plant varieties will produce their own toxins, and new blight varieties will follow on to attack them. That is in the nature of the way in which the planet works.
We have benefited from the fact that we have had a period of grace in which to adjust to such developments, and one of my fears is that we are now in serious danger of running so far ahead of ourselves in the mistaken belief in our own omnipotence, that we will not be prepared for the consequences of the new blights and toxins—or nature's next response—on the scale on which we have sought to pursue change.
As the hon. Member for Totnes pointed out, we are not sufficiently aware of the consequences of the way in which the genetically modified crops are likely to affect other traditional crops. I have to confess to a serious worry about the specific dimension of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention—the proximity of genetically modified crops to organic crops.
That effect may be further complicated by changes already being pushed through in America, where people are trying to redefine the term "organic" to include genetically modified crops. That is the sort of contradiction in terms that makes a mockery of language. We are almost at the Alice in Wonderland stage, in which we say that words mean what we choose them to mean.
It cannot be acceptable for the growing movement of consumers who are rightly concerned about food health, food standards and environmental impacts, and who are beginning to exert pressure so as to be able to exercise an informed choice in the shops, to be denied the right to exercise that choice because we have colluded in a process that makes a mockery of the very word "organic".
It is incumbent on the Minister to try to bring a sense of clarity and sanity to the debate. I am encouraged in that hope because we are fortunate in having a Minister whose personal qualities of clarity, sanity and honesty make a great contribution to the post that he holds. I hope that he has wider support in the Cabinet, to make a significant impact on the process of bringing that sanity into the public debate.
We must ask the Minister to do two important things. First, he should make a statement to clarify the status of the illegal field trials. If the crops have to be removed so that we can have as a starting point a position of legality, and proceed through stages of legality, in which public protection is the paramount concern, so be it.
Secondly, there is a compelling argument growing outside the House that calls for a moratorium on field trials until there has been the widest possible debate on how we can begin to evaluate the impact that genetically modified crops could have. That is not necessarily to resist change or to oppose a broadening of the base of biodiversity, but to insist that we do not undertake such developments in a naive way, ignoring the knock-on consequences that must surely follow. We must accept responsibility for the effects not only on adjacent fields but across the whole of our society, possibly for generations to come. That is the lead that I hope the Minister will give tonight.

Dr. Ian Gibson: I am pleased to participate in this debate, as I have been trying for some months to have the matter discussed in the House. I was privileged to be a member of a parliamentary delegation that met parliamentary delegations from Germany and the United States—genetically modified crops were one of the three subjects that we had to penetrate. Tonight, we have a great opportunity to raise the matter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate.
Genetically modified foods have been entering British supermarkets over the past year, and the outcome has been mixed. The public have accepted some without hesitation—vegetarian cheeses and the paste made from genetically modified tomatoes, for example—but others, such as the flour made from genetically modified soya beans, have caused controversy. We must ask why that is. After all, products such as insulin, interferon and growth hormones—which are all made in bacteria or in genetically modified animal cells and from which many people have medically benefited—have been accepted by the consumer without question. If it is okay to use GM products for medicine, why are there questions about producing food using that technology?
We have, of course, been modifying crop plants for centuries by traditional processes of plant breeding. As the hon. Member for Totnes said, what is new is the development of a technology whereby a gene can be moved from one species to another. Soya was genetically modified by the introduction of a gene from a soil bacterium to make the plant resistant to a particular herbicide, so that the herbicide, which has been in use for some years, can be sprayed on the crop after the plant is above ground, when a single application is sufficient. That replaces the previous practice of spraying not only before emergence, but afterwards with a second, more selective herbicide. The company, Monsanto, claims that a smaller amount of a safer herbicide is used and that the yield is higher—no one has refuted it.
Herbicide-resistant soya has real advantages for a farmer; the new crop accounted for 2 per cent. of the yield in 1996, 15 per cent. in 1997 and, it is predicted, about 40 per cent. in 1998. I believe that the new crop is here to stay; modified soya is now entering the United Kingdom. A number of other crops are in field trials in the United States—as was made clear in our discussions with Congressmen and scientists—including disease-resistant rice, which, it is argued, will be important for the developing world.
The question that we, and the consumer, must ask is whether the new soya crop is safe. Before a crop can be used in Britain, it needs Government approval. Ministers take the advice of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. That expert committee, which includes a consumer representative and an ethical adviser—we could argue that that is insufficient for the process of assessment—advised the Minister that the new product was as safe as conventional soya, although we could argue about that for some time.
The public have been equally or even more concerned about the effect of GM crops on the environment. They ask whether the crops will lead to an increase in the use of herbicides, whether the modified genes will escape into the environment to fill our fields with resistant rape or whether the genes will spread to other species. Those matters are regulated by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which includes a wide variety of skills and views, including green ones. It works on a case-by-case basis, but is now looking at the net effect of several releases—it is evolving an attitude to the new technology.
Even if the new crop is as safe as unmodified soya and we can control any adverse effects on the environment, people still ask whether they really want to eat it. There are several reasons why there has been so much consumer concern about the absence of choice. Scientists bear some responsibility for it; certainly, the expert approval processes are no longer trusted as they once were. Washing powder is recommended no longer by the man in the white coat, but by a consumer.
The public are largely unaware of the development of the careful scientific methods of assessing risk, such as the use of hazard analysis, which can come much closer to an objective evaluation of risk. Risk is an extremely difficult concept for people to understand, as we saw in the case of beef on the bone. It is hard to know how great a risk has to be before one is concerned about it politically. Risks such as a billion to one and a million to one are often equated with the chance of winning the lottery, and everyone thinks that they will win the lottery. Scientists do not agree with the public's concept of risk analysis. BSE has affected the way in which we think of risk.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman mentions risk. My particular concern—on which I hope he can throw some light—is antibiotics. Doctors offer people antibiotics, tranquillisers and sleeping pills; millions of antibiotics are used every day. Like some meat, some GM crops have built-in antibiotics. What are the dangers to society's health of developing GM crops that could create resistance to antibiotics? Will the antibiotics that we are given by doctors be less effective?

Dr. Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, about which I have strong views. I do not believe that the antibiotic gene will necessarily be chosen, because, as he says, that process can pose risks. Other genes can be used as a marker for the particular gene that one wants to be expressed in the plant or organism. I accept his criticism—we have learnt that the antibiotic gene is not the answer and that it should not have been used.
As I was saying, scientists and the public have different assessments of risk. To some extent, the public do not understand scientists; they feel that scientists are


somewhat arrogant. Scientists have a responsibility to explain what they are doing, as the Minister and I agreed during another interchange in the House.
As we have heard in this debate, there is hostility to high-intensity agriculture. A major public concern is that the international agri-food business has been consolidated into about six companies. Decisions about the future of our food are being taken in the United States or in Switzerland. Consumers feel that they have lost control, which they blame on technology. GM food seems to have become a lightning rod for many modern concerns, but my point is—I think that it is accepted—that the problem is not the science, but the way in which it has been organised, and its relationship with society.
We must explain precisely what is going on. There must be no secrecy in terms of the scientists. It is to be hoped that we will shortly have a major conference in this country to discuss the issue in a broad-based way, and many people can come and express their views. There have been such conferences, but they have tended to be polarised and have not moved the process forward. We must open the regulatory process, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree. Nothing must be hidden—there is no reason to hide anything.
The other issue is the question of choice between the traditional product and the new product. That choice has to be put before people, as has happened in supermarkets in this country. People have, to some extent, voted for something that they have seen labelled. Choice is so important, and I think that we can offer genetically manipulated products and the other, more traditional product. People will then taste and feel it, and determine by price and other factors which they think is better. I have also mentioned the safety factors and the process that we go through to make sure that the choice is safe and honest.
Labelling is so important. People must know what a label means and that it speaks the truth. We must monitor the matter to make sure that there are no unexpected problems. I do not want to be a scientific pointy head, but it is possible to engineer a plant where the process of pollination is engineered out. I am not saying that science is wonderful and can cure everything, but if there are problems—as the hon. Member for Totnes has illustrated—scientists have to take them on seriously and find a way to allay the fears of hon. Members and consumers. We have a long way to go before we are absolutely sure.
In the Swiss referendum, it was interesting that when the scientists took off their white coats, came out of the laboratories and explained what was going on, they won the ballot. In the next few months, this major issue will be fully and effectively addressed, and I think that this Government will be at the front of the debate.

9 pm

Mr. David Drew: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate, and I apologise for not having a word with him beforehand. This is an important issue, and some of us have been trying to get a debate on it for weeks. It is very helpful to have such a debate tonight. As I had originally intended to keep my remarks to an intervention or two, I shall be brief.
I am sorry that I missed the very start of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I thought that the points he made were invaluable in laying out the case. My hon. Friends

the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) also made good contributions.
Quite simply, I receive more letters in my postbag on this topic than on any other bar hunting. My constituency may be unusual, but that fact shows that people out there in the real world are concerned and are voicing their opinions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, people want a choice, and they feel annoyed and threatened when that choice is taken away. We start from a position of widespread ignorance and considerable concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, that has not been helped by the decision of Monsanto—in collusion, it appears, with the US Department of Agriculture—to redefine organic crops to include GM crops. That seems to be short-sighted and unfair.
Part of the worry is about the lack of choice, and that comes through in two ways. First, those of us who do not have a scientific background find it difficult to explain why segregation could not have taken place at the outset, and why difficulties now seem to arise all the time. More particularly, people are concerned that there cannot be labelling. People want to know what they are eating—a basic requirement of food safety.
Iceland has taken the decision not to sell GM food in its supermarkets. It is to be congratulated, but I understand that it may be able to do that only until 2000, after which time all of the soya crop is likely to be modified. In simple terms that is scandalous.
The precautionary principle should be applied. If there are difficulties with the experimentation, the polluter should pay. There are many examples of GM companies breaching their consents. That was stated in an article in the New Scientist, and I managed to pick it up through the Co-operative Wholesale Society's magazine Co-op Horizons. Offenders include Monsanto, Nickerson Biochem, AgrEvo, Plant Genetic Systems, the Scottish Crop Research Institute and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany. They have all either provided too small a buffer zone, planted in the wrong place or surrounded their plot with unsuitable crops that could be modified by the influence of the GM crop.
I share hon. Members' confidence in the Government's, and especially the Minister's, ability to deal with the issue. We are up against the forces of global capitalism and big business. Most people are alarmed by our inability to enforce controls not only on this island but at European Union level. Whenever it is mentioned that there may be a need to rein in the companies, there is a threat of our being in breach of World Trade Organisation rules or other rules that may be invoked to threaten Governments.

Mr. Steen: To have two interventions in an Adjournment debate that one started is a great luxury. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Austrian Government, who are soon to take up the EU presidency, intend to put genetically engineered crops high on their list of matters for discussion? The Minister has a wonderful opportunity to take a lead before Austria takes up the presidency and to explain what Britain is doing on a matter that concerns many people.

Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I had heard that, but it would be good to see exactly what it means and how the British Government will respond.
When the companies concerned are criticised, their response seems sometimes to be to deny the right of others to put their arguments. I am aware of the scientific approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, but I am seriously worried by the companies' willingness and apparent ability to spend millions of pounds on a public relations campaign that even parties in general elections can only dream about. They have serious resources, and that should be understood.
We are dealing with a force that needs to be exposed. I am not totally against genetically modifying crops, because there may be arguments for it in the third world or in our future, but the precautionary principle should be applied and people should be given a choice and know that the matter has been properly discussed and scrutinised—then we will see the true value of the process—because otherwise people will regard it as an enormous threat to their very existence.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), not on his luck in the draw, because we all know how Thursday Adjournment debates are chosen—that shows the importance that Madam Speaker attaches to the issue—but on his selection of subject.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for their speeches. My great wish would have been to have a couple of hours' warning that we would have the joy of an extended Adjournment debate. I could then have been in a better position to respond to the important points made on both sides. That was not to be, and I shall respond to the subject of the debate as reflected in the title, which refers to the recent Court of Appeal decision, on which I can speak in detail. I cannot respond in such detail to the other points made, but they deserve comment from the Government.
If ever there were a case for a nanny state to monitor change that can affect all of society, genetic modification of the food chain is it. We must assess whether we have the right controls and the right regulatory framework. I have to say to my hon. Friends, without criticising them in any way, that some people will use the term "precautionary principle" when it suits them, but will on other occasions yell that the nanny state should get out of the way to let them do their own thing. Theirs is a simplistic view, and we must be more adult than that in our politics.
The hon. Member for Totnes was absolutely right to say that many organisations and more than one Department are involved with genetically modified food. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a key player. The Departments of Health and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are also involved. The Department of Trade and Industry sponsors the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, which has an important role. Other Government offices use science to formulate policy, which ensures that decisions have a good audit trail.
During my time at MAFF, we have been required to comment on or make decisions about aspects of genetic modification. If cases are taken in isolation, one can feel

robust about the line one takes, but the difficulty lies in seeing where the bits fit into the big picture. The dozen or so advisory committees that service MAFF and the Departments of Health and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were set up for a specific purpose, but are required to deal with genetic modification. They will deal with it within the rules, whether considering pesticides or other matters. Pesticides for genetically modified crops are obviously a matter for consideration, and it is necessary to see the big picture.
I can honestly say that all the Ministers and officials in MAFF who deal with the genetic modification issue, from the beginning of the growing of crops to the end of the food chain, have discussed how to make better decisions on genetic modification.
The issue has been raised with me on my visits to farms and, more particularly, research institutions in the public and private sectors. Indeed, I have asked about the regulatory process and how the Government can check what is in food, including, for example, whether there is a genetically modified ingredient in a made-up supermarket food. I have asked how we can check that soya may be only 5 per cent. of the product and whether what is on the label is true.
Science is moving fast in laboratories that can police any regulatory system that is put firmly in place. On the other hand, as laboratories will freely admit, and rightly so because this is leading-edge science, there is a whole host of other crops coming along that can be genetically modified in perhaps two or three years, but which would take up to 50 years to produce through ordinary breeding techniques.
I accept the argument that genetic modification is not simply speeding up a natural process. It cannot be when genes are mixed from different species. Clearly, there is a difference. Nevertheless, the process is accepted in medicine. As hon. Members have said, some of the new wonder drugs have been accepted, and I think rightly so. There is some comfort in the regulatory process for medicine which, I admit, is not in place for food and agriculture.
Hon. Members spoke of the need for science to be open. That is crucial and fundamental. There cannot be any secrecy. It is in scientists' own interests to go on a mission to explain. That is important. It cannot necessarily be done by the Government or individual companies. It requires a team effort, operating on many fronts. There must be an ethos of openness and transparency. The excuse of competitive edge must not be used. Sometimes, commercial confidentiality can be used as a smokescreen for competitive edge to keep things quiet, but, in this area, we must be careful before we go down that road.
I opened the vegetarian food fair in the midlands last autumn. The stallholders were, by and large, small firms—some were family businesses and some had turnovers of a few tens of millions of pounds. The issue of source of supply of ingredients was raised with me. Some firms had sources of GM-free soya and maize for their products. I said that it was early days for me at the Ministry, but that I kept being told by the big players that they could not get separation. Obviously, I was concerned that if small firms could do that, big firms should be able to. As a result, early in January we held a meeting in MAFF with a couple of dozen people from the big players in the retail food industry and the small firms dealing with


health food shops and the vegetarian food sector. It was as useful for me and my officials to listen to the discussion between the players as it was for them to participate.
As a result of that meeting, my officials and scientists went away to think about what the Government could do either unilaterally or with our partners in Europe to make acceptable progress on the issue. A couple of months ago, MAFF published a list of 47 suppliers of GM-free soya and maize. We put it on the Internet so that people in the food business in this country and in Europe could find out where in America and Canada there was a niche supplier. It was not always easy. In fact, the last time that I checked, there was a list of 58 suppliers. People were queueing up to get on the MAFF GM-free list because they could see niche markets opening up.
I remain convinced that market pressures could be used to force the large American suppliers to segregate. The Americans understand market forces, if they understand nothing else. Also, they are beginning slowly to understand that the consumer ethos in Europe is different from that in the United States. People in Europe want to know more about their food and want effective labelling, showing the ingredients and the methods of production.
There is not that clamour for information in the United States—if the Food and Drug Administration says that it is okay, it is. Europe is slightly different, and European consumers are putting pressures on individual Governments, which are causing different aspects to come into play. I cannot comment on what has been said about the view of the Austrians. They took the presidency on 1 July and have had it for only one month. I do not know whether the issue is on their agenda.
Before I deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Totnes, I hope that I have shown hon. Members—in this respect, I would call them all hon. Friends—that we are seized of the importance of the issue, and that we will not rush to a judgment on it. No individual Government Department can run with the issue, as it crosses all Government boundaries. In our internal discussions, we are trying to find a framework within government in which to discuss the issue more widely.
The ethical dimension is crucial and, as has been said, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has always had an ethics adviser—a new person has recently been appointed following a retirement. As we make progress on our proposals for the Food Standards Agency, we will consider the overall make-up of the advisory committee network. We will start a new committee on animal feedstuffs later this year—five years since it was recommended and accepted as necessary, but not established, by the previous Government. I am not criticising, but merely setting the record straight and pointing out that the idea has been around for a long time.
Aspects of animal feedstuffs slip between existing advisory committees, and we need to plug that gap. One such issue could be the use of genetically modified crops as animal feedstock.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I have operated jointly on issues such as labelling since we set up the joint food standards and safety group last June between MAFF and the Department of Health, with 300-plus civil servants, many of whom are graduates and science-based, dealing with food regulation—contaminants, surveillance, labelling and so on. One of

our first decisions was to change the instructions of the British negotiators in Brussels regarding the labelling of foods containing GM ingredients. It has taken a while to get a decision in Europe, and it is not acceptable to everyone, but, from this September, new rules will apply to labelling, particularly that of soya and maize. We have avoided having a label that says, "This product may contain genetically modified ingredients". That is the cop-out for everyone, and we could envisage it being abused throughout the food industry. If there is no genetically modified ingredient in the final product, but genetic modification was used in the manufacturing process or refining, the label cannot state that the product contains genetically modified ingredients. We have to take a view on that to get honesty and transparency in the labelling. The process of manufacture is a separate issue. In time, we will have to address manufacturing techniques and how foods are produced, so that people have more information. That means making the science open and creating the opportunity for people to have a choice.
No one will ever claim that items are perfectly safe. I do not want to get into an esoteric argument about what "safe" means, but it was put to me earlier today—I hope that I have remembered it because I did not write it down—in a British Standards Institute document that safe means something that is not an unacceptable risk. It is safe to cross a road; there is a risk, but it is not unacceptable. We have to be on guard all the while in considering the use of science.
My introductory remarks were born out of my experience of discussions in the past few 15 months as a Minister and are not part of a set brief, although I speak for the Government. They give some idea of how the Government are considering how we can examine the wider issue and not be trapped into looking at each issue in isolation and then wondering what went wrong when we see the big picture. We need to see the big picture as the bits of the jigsaw are put in place, whether it is health, food, pesticides, animal feed or techniques. It is a much bigger operation than a simple new technique or product.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes, who made a coherent, detailed speech on an important issue born out of something that affected one of his constituents and led to a major court case and a decision in which, in one respect, my Ministry was found wanting. I was wondering how he could have cut his speech if we had started at 10 pm and had only 30 minutes. I worked out that I would have had three minutes to reply to him.
The central issues that the hon. Member raised touch on some of those to which I have referred. The recent Court of Appeal judgment addressed the three issues that he mentioned. The questions are whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions adequately took account of the risk of cross-pollination of Mr. Watson's organic sweet corn; whether a consent issued by the DETR to Sharpes under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 could lawfully cover a national list trial conducted for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany; and whether the national list trial was invalid because MAFF had not complied with regulation 11(3) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 as amended—the national list regulations—by requiring the applicant to provide the results of two replicated trials with the application. The court was asked to order the destruction of the trial crops.
I was concerned when the hon. Member started his speech, because he mentioned many figures on GM trial crops that did not ring a bell with me. Trial crops and experimental crops are separate. Tonight, I am dealing only with trial crops. I do not say that experimental crops are all over the place, but there are a considerable number. Some may be only the size of the Dispatch Box to start with. In considering the appeal, the court drew a distinction between the health and safety implications of releasing genetically modified organisms, which are dealt with by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the national list trials, which are about seed marketing. The court noted that that particular case involved both regimes, while, ordinarily, the national list trials do not.
Research field trials of genetically modified crops, such as the one in Devon, must have prior approval from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, under section 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the associated regulations. Before approval is granted, the company proposing the research has to provide full information about the genetically modified organism and carry out an assessment of the possible risks to human health and the environment and how those risks will be avoided. The application is scrutinised by the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, to which reference has been made, which advises on whether consent should be granted or whether additional precautions should be taken to minimise the risk.
Two issues were raised in the Court of Appeal on the GMO legislation. The first concerned the holder of the consent, who has responsibility for the safety of the GMO throughout the period of the consent. The Court of Appeal confirmed that a series of people might be involved in the research work authorised by the consent—for example, staff at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany carrying out a national list trial—but that, at all times, the consent holder was responsible for ensuring the safety of the GMO. The second point concerned the way in which the risk of cross-pollination with other maize crops was assessed, and, again, the Court of Appeal judged that the procedure was followed satisfactorily.
In the case of the national list trials of maize in Devon, there are six plots of genetically modified maize, among the total of 1,163, more than 2 km from Mr. Watson's sweetcorn. That is the issue which the hon. Gentleman raised at MAFF Question Time a month ago. I was not certain which farm it was, but I had already read one of the briefs. The matter is important to us because the issue went to court. I do not know how the 2 km gap came about. It was assessed on 200 m and deemed to be okay by ACRE. In the event, the gap is 2 km. Perhaps the 2 km gap came about because, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, someone found out about it and moved the crop. I should be interested to know whether that was the case. I should welcome more information on that. Although there is a theoretical possibility that some pollen might travel that far and cross-pollinate with the sweetcorn, I am informed that, in practice, the risk is likely to be zero. That is the view of the risk at that distance.
There are no specific requirements under the current legislation controlling the release of GMOs to consider organic farming when field-testing GM crops. That may

come as a surprise to the House, but that is a fact. However, where needed, release consents have specific measures attached that are designed to limit cross-pollination of neighbouring crops, whether or not they are organic. As the hon. Gentleman kindly reminded the House, the Government are very much in favour of organic farming. I can honestly say that it was a top priority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who, until Monday, was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Moving our budget around for both research and conversion has not been easy. Over the past 12 months, we have made a modest contribution, but it is in the right direction. We favour organic production and want to do what we can to assist conversion.
I want to make it absolutely clear that my Ministry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be working with the farming community and representatives of organic farming to ensure that the expansion of organic farming is not compromised by the introduction of genetically modified crops. I might have rambled in my introduction and deviated from my brief, but I want to make it clear that that is the most important sentence that I shall say this evening. I genuinely mean that—those are not words to be put in Hansard and forgotten about; I shall follow through.
I do not want to end on a completely different argument, but it could be said, in connection with the rules on organic production, that Mr. Watson's argument is essentially with the Soil Association rather than with the Government. Because it gives them a niche and a competitive edge, private sector bodies can always demand tighter rules than those laid down in either UK or European law. It comes down to a question of commercial judgment or, in some cases, to an ideological stance, whereby people say that, whatever the science, they are against genetically modified crops and food. Let me make it clear that that is not the Government's position. It is a legitimate position for people to adopt, but it makes it far more difficult for people such as myself to discuss how to take matters forward. It is a respectable position and I do not criticise it, but consequences flow from it.
There are no fully worked-up EC standards for organic crops, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the research he did before coming to see me recently with a delegation. I hope that he and his colleagues found the meeting helpful; I certainly did, and so did my officials. Pending the introduction of EC standards for organic production, the regulatory authority—the UK Register for Organic Foods Standards—has explicitly prohibited the use of GMOs and their derivatives in organic production. Until recently, the ban did not extend to GMO products containing no genetic material, but that exception has now been removed—in other words, the rules have got even tighter. That action reflects a practical position that has been adopted, but I ask the hon. Gentleman and those following our debate to acknowledge that it presents considerable difficulties in terms of possible future discussions.
All that does not gainsay what I have said about our desire to ensure that the introduction of GMOs on a trial basis, an experimental basis, or even a full-crop basis, in no way damages organic farming. Given the extremely tight public expenditure restrictions to which we are subject as part of our contract with the electorate, it would be stupid for the Government to push more money into


converting to organic farming while allowing the farmers who take that brave step to be damaged by other actions within the process that I have described.
In considering the national list regime, the Court of Appeal said that MAFF had acted unlawfully by not requiring the applicant to submit the results of two replicated trials with his application. However, it rejected the application to order the destruction of the trial on those grounds, and said explicitly that the Minister could not properly destroy or require destruction of the trial. The court was critical of my Department for not enforcing regulation 11(3), and, in commenting on the wider implications, concluded that the position
needed to be resolved speedily and across the board.
On behalf of the Government, let me say straight away that I accept the court's criticism, but I shall take the opportunity to explain to the House why my Ministry took the line that it did. Regulation 11(3) states that
no application shall be entertained for the entry in a National List of a variety … unless in each case the applicant submits to Ministers with the application the results of … replicated trials".
I should make it clear that neither that provision nor any of other tests and trials required for national list purposes has any relevance in assessing the environmental or safety aspects of genetic modification. It takes a while to get one's head round the fact that the information from trials is not used for that purpose. Those trials have no role whatever in assessing the environmental or safety aspects of genetic modification. Those very important issues are dealt with under separate legislation—the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the regulations made under it.
No variety is accepted into national list tests and trials unless the appropriate release consent has been issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and tests and trials are carried out according to any release conditions that may have been imposed under the consent.
The requirement for replicated trials information was first introduced in 1979, to act as a brake on the number of varieties entering the trials system. The aim was to encourage breeders to do their own pre-entry trials to screen out for themselves those varieties unlikely to be successful in full national list trials, rather than relying on the national list system, which was heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, to do it for them.
The aim was to alleviate the pressure on the statutory system, which was becoming overloaded with varieties that were being tested unnecessarily at the taxpayer's expense. I repeat that replicated trials data were never used in making decisions about whether to add varieties to the national list. That was—and is—done on the basis of data from official tests and trials, which is a separate issue.
Following a review in 1992–93, a streamlined system of what were known as value for cultivation and use—VCU—trials was introduced, which reduced the burden on the trials system and led to the staged reintroduction of fees for official trials in 1994 and 1995. During that review, the British Society of Plant Breeders was advised informally by senior officials that the national list regulations would be amended at the first available opportunity to remove the wholly procedural requirements of regulation 11(3).
By April 1995, when the full weight of the reintroduced VCU charges was felt, the practice of submitting VCU data had diminished significantly. The requirement to

submit replicated trials data had no value once the pressure on the system was relieved. Because of the charges, plant breeders were not queueing up, the taxpayer was not being ripped off and there was no need for the regulation.
It was decided—from a common-sense point of view, having spent some time considering the matter, I agree—that a requirement to provide information that served no useful purpose and which was not used placed an unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on applicants; therefore, the information was not sought.
Who made the change? Where and when? Where is the paperwork? The answer is that we are still trying to find it. We cannot find any paperwork from 1992–93, when the decision was made, showing who authorised the change at the time. Nevertheless, that was clearly carried out. It follows from what I have said that parliamentary time was never found to change the regulation.
The national list system, which was created shortly after we joined the European Community in 1972, is based on EC directives on the marketing of plant varieties. They are essentially concerned with the agronomic value of varieties and the end-use quality of the crop—for example, milling in the case of wheat, and malting in the case of barley. There are about 1,000 agricultural varieties on the national list, and none of them is genetically modified. We have some 900 varieties at varying stages of tests and trials for addition to the national list, only 20 of which are genetically modified.
I intend to set in hand immediate action to amend the regulations to remove the requirements of regulation 11(3). I make it clear that we are operating regulation 11(3) as from the court's judgment. The requirement for replicated trials is being operated because that is the law and the court has said that we must follow it. However, having examined it, we still see no useful purpose in regulation 11(3) and will seek to amend it. That involves a statutory process which will involve consultation. There will be no fast tracking; for the foreseeable future and until the regulation is amended, we will operate it.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Rooker: To pre-empt the hon. Gentleman's third intervention, I shall say something about what should be done to resolve the position in respect of varieties already on the national list or currently in trials. The issues raised are complex, and we are examining them very carefully. I told my officials on Monday that I wanted to come to the House tonight to explain the issues, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the wider industry deserved an answer as quickly as possible.
I am not in a position to inform the House about how we shall deal with the matter, but I can say that it is under active and urgent consideration by those who are colloquially called m'learned friends. It is a very complex legal matter, and there are many varieties on the national list that are being grown as crops. They are perfectly safe and—I emphasise this—have gone through the regulatory process in respect of environmental and food safety. They conform fully to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. By definition, some will not conform to regulation 11(3). That is an important point, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes for having raised it and to my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate.

Mr. Steen: I thought that I would catch the Minister before he sat down. This has been a fascinating debate


and he is making a fascinating speech. The whole House has been riveted by his command of the subject. We are grateful to him for being here and for what he has said, but he has skirted around one issue—the genetically modified crops that are in their first year of trials. They will be on the seed-testing list next year unless something is done to put them through further trials. In view of the Minister's fascinating preamble to his prepared speech, will he say something, not only to vegetarians but to those who are concerned about food safety in general, about whether he is planning to extend the trials so that genetically modified crops do not go on the seed list only two years after the trials?

Mr. Rooker: That is the very question which I cannot answer, because it relates to crops undergoing trials and have perhaps not undergone two replicated years, or are already on the list. I said that there are no GM crops on the list, but there are 20 undergoing trials. I do not know all the details of the 20 or whether any had replicated years, but, clearly, people were being told that that was not necessary. It is a complex issue.
I do not want to be accused of short-circuiting the House—no one will ever accuse me of doing that; The Government do not want to do that. We have to take legal

advice on the matter. The Court of Appeal decision in respect of regulation 11(3) has gone against the Government for the reasons that I have explained.
I do not know whether the industry is fully seized of the implications of the judgment. I have not been on the receiving end of massive representations from people growing crops that have been through the system, complaining that the court has said that the system did not conform to the law. Those are non-genetically modified organism crops. We must find a way to regularise the system. We are debating a substantial industry and not a few trials. Crops are being grown and harvested, and seeds are being sold. We are looking urgently at the matter.
As the House begins the summer recess tomorrow, I shall not be able to report back to hon. Members, but I assure them that the matter is being dealt with daily and that that will continue during the recess. Datelines are looming by which we must know how to deal with this complex issue. We are taking much advice on the matter and do not seek in any way to circumvent the court's decision. The court found that we had been acting wrongly, and we accept that. The matter is more serious than I suspect most hon. Members realise. We shall move as quickly as we can to rectify the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.